Venisha Arnold v. Google LLC

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
• Decided: February 3, 2026
• Docket: 01-25-01003-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued February 3, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-01003-CV ——————————— VENISHA ARNOLD, Appellant V. GOOGLE LLC, YOUTUBE LLC, ALPHABET, INC, REDDIT, INC, FELIXLIGHTNER-REDDIT THREAD STARTER, RECHLIN-REDDIT ADMIN, BOSHAUS-REDDIT ADMIN, MUNX1ER-REDDIT ADMIN, SWHITT-REDDIT ADMIN, AND TEXLEX-REDDIT ADMIN., Appellees

On Appeal from the 129th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2025-52549

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Venisha Arnold, filed a notice of appeal on December 1, 2025

attempting to appeal the trial court’s November 26, 2025 order granting a motion to

dismiss filed by Reddit, Inc.—one of multiple defendants named in the underlying suit—pursuant to Section 27.010(a)(3) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies

Code. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals from final

judgments unless a statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal. CMH Homes v. Perez,

340 S.W.3d 444, 447–48 (Tex. 2011); see N.Y. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez,

799 S.W.2d 677, 678–79 (Tex. 1990) (“In the absence of a special statute making an

interlocutory order appealable, a judgment must dispose of all issues and parties in

the case . . . to be final and appealable.”).

Here, the November 26, 2025 order is interlocutory because (1) the order

makes clear that the trial court must still rule on Reddit’s related request for

attorney’s fees, costs, and sanctions, and (2) appellant named other parties as

defendants in the underlying suit. Although Section 51.014(a)(12) grants a right to

interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss filed under Section

27.003, no statutory authority authorizes an interlocutory appeal from an order

granting a motion to dismiss under Section 27.003. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE § 51.014(a)(12) (authorizing appeal from interlocutory order that “denies a

motion to dismiss filed under Section 27.003”); Schlumberger Ltd. v. Rutherford,

472 S.W.3d 881, 887 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.) (holding that

no statutory authority provides for interlocutory appeal from grant of motion to

dismiss under § 27.003); Inwood Forest Cmty. Improvement Ass’n v. Arce, 485

2 S.W.3d 65, 70 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. denied) (“No statutory

authority exists, however, for an interlocutory appeal from the grant of a motion to

dismiss under section 27.003 of the TCPA.”). Thus, our Court lacks jurisdiction to

consider an interlocutory appeal of an order granting a motion to dismiss under

Section 27.003. See Fell Clutch, LLC v. Cherokee Black Entm’t Inc., No. 14-19-

00577-CV, 2020 WL 372978, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 23, 2020,

no pet.).

On December 23, 2025, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that this

appeal was subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a

written response within 10 days of the notice demonstrating that this Court has

jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a) (allowing involuntary

dismissal of appeal after notice). Appellant failed to adequately respond.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3(a), (c), 43.2(f). All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Gunn and Johnson.