Pastor Wilbert Antonio Coleman v. G.M. Automotive Repair Service

Court of Appeals of Texas

Pastor Wilbert Antonio Coleman v. G.M. Automotive Repair Service

DecidedFebruary 10, 1999

Docket04-98-01013-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Pastor Wilbert Antonio Coleman v. G.M. Automotive Repair Service (Pastor Wilbert Antonio Coleman v. G.M. Automotive Repair Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pastor Wilbert Antonio Coleman v. G.M. Automotive Repair Service, (Tex. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

No. 04-98-01013-CV

Wilbert A. COLEMAN, Appellant

v.

G.M. AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SERVICE, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 244376 Honorable H. Paul Canales, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Alma L. López, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 10, 1999

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

The last order entered by the trial court in the underlying cause was a pre-trial scheduling order and order referring the case to mediation. This order does not dispose of the parties or the underlying claims. An order that does not dispose of all parties and causes of action is not final and appealable. See Houston Health Clubs, Inc. v. First Court of Appeals, 722 S.W.2d 692, 693 (Tex. 1986); Northeast Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966). An order compelling mediation is an unappealable interlocutory order. See Materials Evolution Development USA, Inc. v. Jablonowski, 949 S.W.2d 31, 33 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1997, no writ).

On January 13, 1999, we ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant responded that he seeks to appeal the trial court's order entered June 12, 1998, which granted a motion for reconsideration and/or motion for new trial and set aside the trial court's order dated June 4, 1998. An order granting a new trial is an unappealable interlocutory order. See Cummins v. Paisan Const. Co., 682 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex. 1984); Gee v. Lewisville Memorial Hosp., Inc., 849 S.W.2d 458, 461 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1993, writ denied). This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant retains his right to appeal after the trial court renders a final judgment disposing of all parties and causes of action.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

Return to
Fourth Court of Appeals

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

No. 04-98-01013-CV

Wilbert A. COLEMAN, Appellant

v.

G.M. AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SERVICE, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 244376 Honorable H. Paul Canales, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Alma L. López, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 10, 1999

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

The last order entered by the trial court in the underlying cause was a pre-trial scheduling order and order referring the case to mediation. This order does not dispose of the parties or the underlying claims. An order that does not dispose of all parties and causes of action is not final and appealable. See Houston Health Clubs, Inc. v. First Court of Appeals, 722 S.W.2d 692, 693 (Tex. 1986); Northeast Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966). An order compelling mediation is an unappealable interlocutory order. See Materials Evolution Development USA, Inc. v. Jablonowski, 949 S.W.2d 31, 33 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1997, no writ).

On January 13, 1999, we ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant responded that he seeks to appeal the trial court's order entered June 12, 1998, which granted a motion for reconsideration and/or motion for new trial and set aside the trial court's order dated June 4, 1998. An order granting a new trial is an unappealable interlocutory order. See Cummins v. Paisan Const. Co., 682 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex. 1984); Gee v. Lewisville Memorial Hosp., Inc., 849 S.W.2d 458, 461 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1993, writ denied). This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant retains his right to appeal after the trial court renders a final judgment disposing of all parties and causes of action.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

Return to
Fourth Court of Appeals

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Pastor Wilbert Antonio Coleman v. G.M. Automotive Repair Service, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pastor-wilbert-antonio-coleman-v-gm-automotive-rep-texapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack