### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-15-00455- CV

Scott P . Ogle, Appellan t

v.
Maeli Hec tor, a/k/a Maeli Ar ellano, a/k /a Maeli Johnson , Appellee

F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 2 O F TRAVIS CO UNTY NO. C-1 -CV- 14- 0117 92, H ONO RAB LE TO DD T. WO NG, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Scott P. Og le filed his orig inal petition in D e c e mb e r 2 0 1 4 , naming appellee
Maeli Hec t o r as t h e sole defe ndant. I n his third amende d petition, filed in May 2015, he added Dicky Grig g and Stephe n Re id Minot “as Def endants to take their depositions to investiga te potential
claims or suits associate d with this lawsuit.” He made sever al alleg ations ag ainst Grig g and Minot,
such as acc using Minot of misdiagnosing him with a mental disorder an d acc using Grig g of
mischara cter izi ng Og le’s behavior and threa tening to cause him trouble with the State Ba r of Texas. 1

I n his pray er, Og le asked for “judg ment ag ainst Def endants for actua l damag es,” interest, and court

costs. He a

rra ng ed to have Grig g and Mi not serve d with citation, and both Grig g and Mi not filed

answe rs to the lawsuit.

Og le is a license d attorney repr esenting himself in this appea l a nd the underly

ing matter. 1Wh e n th e tr ia l c o u rt signe d order s g ranting Hec tor’s motions for summary judgme nt, 2 Og le filed a notice of appea l. I n our revie w of the cler k’s rec ord, we rea liz ed that the order s g ranting

summary j u dg ment in favor of Hec tor wer e interlocutory beca use Grig g and Minot had not been
d i s m i ssed from the suit by Og le or by way of an order from the trial court. We sent Og le a let t er inquiring into whether we could exerci s e jurisdiction, specific ally noting that his claims ag ainst Grig g an d Minot appea

red to still be live in the trial court. Og le responde d with a “Provisional
Motion to Abate and Remand,” stating that he had lear ned that we rec eived a supplemental cler k’s

rec ord containing an order g ranting Grig g ’s motion to quash his deposition and that he had rec eived 3

a notice that the cause would be set fo r s u b m i s s i o n shortly

. He conclude d that if we wer e “still

conce rned with the jurisdictional issue,” we should abate the cause to the trial court “for resolution
of any outstanding issues.” He did not a ddress our conce rns or attempt to e x plain the status of the underly ing suit or how w e could possibly exercise jurisdiction over the appe al.
Whil e it might be that he si mply meant to apply rule 202 for purp o s es o f deposing Grig g and Minot, the fac t rema ins that Og le, a l i ce n s ed attorney , added Grig g and Minot as 4

Og le originally only asser ted a cla i m fo r brea ch of contra ct aga inst Hec tor, but afte r she 2 filed her motion for s u m m ar y j u d g ment, he filed his third amende d petition, adding a claim for promissory estoppel. Hec tor then filed a motion for summary judgme nt addre ssing that claim. The trial court held separ ate hear in gs on the two motion for summary judgme nt and signe d separ ate order s g ranting summary judgme nt for Hec tor on Og le’s claims brea ch of contra ct and promissory estoppel.
The trial court signe d an order g ranting Grig g ’s motion to quas h h i s deposition and

3 g ranting Grig g attorney ’s fe es, but that order did not remove Gr iggas a de fenda nt in the suit.
Rule 202 addre sses the proce ss for asking a trial court to a llow the taking of a deposition 4 to perpe tuate or obtain testimony for use in an anticipated lawsuit or to investiga te a potential claim or suit. See Tex. R. C iv. P. 202.1; see also Tex. R. C iv. P. 202.2-.5.
2defe ndants in his lawsuit when he fi l ed h is third amende d petition. Grig g and Minot wer e both

serve d and both filed answe rs. The trial court’s o rd er s re l ated to Hec tor did not addre ss Grig g

or Minot at all (and indeed, their sty le heading s did not list Grig g or Minot as defe ndants). An order
that does not dispose of all claims ag ains t al l defe ndants is interlocutory and g ener ally cannot
be appea led. See W

iley v. Hocutt, Inc. , No. 03-15-00619- CV, 2015 WL 665584 0 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 30, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.). Rather than abate this appea l, we dism i s s for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(a) ; W iley , 2015 WL 6655840, at *1.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and B ourland Dissenting O pinion by

J ustice Pemberton
Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction
Filed: Jul y

14, 2016

3