Texas Southern University, Texas Southern University President Leisa Crumpton-Young and General Counsel Hao Le v. Mary Young

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 29, 2022
• Docket: 01-22-00913-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Texas Southern University, Texas Southern University President Leisa Crumpton-Young and General Counsel Hao Le v. Mary Young

Appellate case number: 01-22-00913-CV

Trial court case number: 2022-77744

Trial court: 127th District Court of Harris County

On December 8, 2022, appellants filed their notice of appeal, attempting to appeal what they describe as an “implicit denial of Defendants’ First Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction during the December 8, 2022 hearing.” Generally, a Texas appellate court has jurisdiction to hear only an appeal from a final judgment. Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992). However, appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders if a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex. 1998); New York Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d 677, 679 (Tex. 1990); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014 (statutory list of appealable interlocutory orders). Section 51.014(a)(8) permits a person to appeal an interlocutory order of a district court that “denies a plea to the jurisdiction.” See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(8). “A trial court that rules on the merits of an issue without explicitly rejecting an asserted jurisdictional attack has implicitly denied the jurisdictional challenge.” Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334, 339–40 (Tex. 2006). The record neither contains an order denying the jurisdictional challenge, nor any trial court ruling on the merits that could serve as an implicit ruling denying the jurisdictional challenge. Because it appears that the record does not contain any trial court order denying the plea to the jurisdiction, or any implicit ruling, the Court may dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Unless appellants file a response demonstrating by citation to the law that this Court has jurisdiction of the appeal, this appeal will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). Appellants’ response, if any, is due in this Court no later than 5:00 p.m. Thursday, January 5, 2023.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/ Sherry Radack_________  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___December 29, 2022_____