Ruth Torres v. Texas Workforce Commission, Marie Diaz, Pursuit of Excellence, Inc., Pursuit of Excellence- Texas LLC, Pursuit of Excellence I LLC
This text of Ruth Torres v. Texas Workforce Commission, Marie Diaz, Pursuit of Excellence, Inc., Pursuit of Excellence- Texas LLC, Pursuit of Excellence I LLC (Ruth Torres v. Texas Workforce Commission, Marie Diaz, Pursuit of Excellence, Inc., Pursuit of Excellence- Texas LLC, Pursuit of Excellence I LLC) 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.
Opinion
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 4, 2022
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00196-CV
RUTH TORRES, Appellant V. TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION, MARIE DIAZ, PURSUIT OF EXCELLENCE, INC., PURSUIT OF EXCELLENCE–TEXAS, LLC, AND PURSUIT OF EXCELLENCE I, LLC, Appellees
On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-08581
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Molberg In her notice of appeal, appellant lists twenty-two orders of which she intends
to address in the appeal. Because none of the orders listed is a final judgment or
appear to be appealable interlocutory orders, we questioned our jurisdiction over the
appeal. See Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (appellate
courts generally have jurisdiction only over final judgments that dispose of all parties
and claims and interlocutory orders as allowed by statute); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a) (listing appealable interlocutory orders). We directed
appellant to file a letter brief addressing the jurisdictional issue.
In response to our letter, appellant filed both a letter brief and a motion labeled
“Relator’s Motion for Classification as Writs of Mandamus, Prohibition &
Injunction.” We denied appellant’s motion to reclassify the appeal with a notation
that any original proceeding must be initiated with a petition that complies with the
requirements set forth in rules of appellate procedure 52.1 and 52.3. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 52.1, 52.3. In her letter brief, appellant does not dispute the absence of a
final judgment or appealable interlocutory order. Rather, she asserts we have
mandamus jurisdiction to review the orders. Appellant, however, has failed to
comply with the requirements for filing an original proceeding and we have already
informed her that we will not “reclassify” her appeal.
Because the orders referenced in the notice of appeal are not reviewable by
ordinary appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P.
42.3(a).
/Ken Molberg// 220196f.p05 KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
–2– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
RUTH TORRES, Appellant On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-22-00196-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-08581. Opinion delivered by Justice TEXAS WORKFORCE Molberg. Justices Reichek and COMMISSION, MARIE DIAZ, Garcia participating. PURSUIT OF EXCELLENCE, INC., PURSUIT OF EXCELLENCE– TEXAS, LLC, PURSUIT OF EXCELLENCE I, LLC, Appellees
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
Judgment entered this 4th day of May, 2022.
–3–
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ruth Torres v. Texas Workforce Commission, Marie Diaz, Pursuit of Excellence, Inc., Pursuit of Excellence- Texas LLC, Pursuit of Excellence I LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruth-torres-v-texas-workforce-commission-marie-diaz-pursuit-of-texapp-2022.