### 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. 03-11-00206- CV

Texas Depart m ent of Public Saf ety; Steve M cG raw, in his O ff icial Capacity as Direc tor of the Texas De partm ent of Public Saf ety C om m ission ; and Allan B. Polunsky, i n hi s Of fi cial Capacity as Chairm an of the P ubl ic Saf

ety C om m ission , Appellan ts

v. Miguel Salazar; Edgar Soria; F rancisco Avila Trej o; G ree n Meadows Land scaping, In c.; Mer ida Flore s; Nader D alo; G odof redo A. Ore llana; an d Ruw aidh a Liw aza, Appellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 345 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-0 9-0 0027 3, H ONO RAB LE O RLINDA NARANJO , JUDGE P RESIDING

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

The Texas Depa

rtmen t o f Public Safety , the Direc tor of the Texas Depa rtment of Public Safety , and the Chairman of the Public Safety Commi ssion (collec tively , the “De partment” ), have filed a notice of interlocutory appea l, asser ting that the trial court has “implicitly ” denied their plea to the jurisdiction. Appellee s Migue l Salazar, Edg ar Soria, Fr ancisc o Avila Trejo, Gre en Meadow s L andsca

ping, I nc., Merida Flore s, Nade r Dalo, Godofre do A. Ore llana, and Ru waidha
L iwaza have filed an em er gen cy motion to dismiss this appea l, contending that this Court lacks jurisdiction beca

use the trial court has not y et denied the Depa rtment’s plea to the jurisdiction. The appellee s further asser

t that the Depa

rtment is improperly using the automatic stay associate d with this interlocutory appea l to avoid discovery and preve nt the filing or hear ing of dispositi ve motions.

The civil prac tice and reme dies code expressly provides for an interlocutory appea lfrom an order g ranting or denying a plea t o the jurisdiction by a g overnme ntal unit. Tex. Civ.

Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (8) (West 2008). When a notice of interlocutory appea l under section 51.014(a) (8) is filed, all proce eding s in the trial court are automati ca l ly stay ed pending resoluti on of the appea l. Id. § 51.014(b). Whil e the Depa rtment contends that the t ri al co u rt “implicitly ” denied its plea to the jurisdiction, the order appea led from does not deny the plea to the jurisdiction, implicitl y or otherwise, but g rants the appellee s’ motion for continuance of the Depa rtment’s plea to the jurisdiction and allows additional discovery

. See City of Galveston v. Gray , 93 S.W .3d 587, 590 (Tex. App.—Houston 2002, pet. denied) (holding that order granting m otion for continuance and allowing discovery did not constitute i m p licit denial of plea to jurisdiction).
Be cause the trial court’s order does n o t d en y the Depa rtment’s plea to the jurisdiction, we lack jurisdiction over this interlocutory appea l.
Due to the emer g ency nature of the appellee s’ motion and the eff ect of the automatic stay , we invoke Texas Rule of Appellate Procedur e 2 and suspend the require ment that we g ive the parties ten day s’ notice of the Court’s intent to involuntarily dismiss the appe al. See Tex. R. App. P. 2 and 42.3. This appea l is dism issed for wa nt of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice
Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Henson a nd Goodwin Dissenting O pinion by

J ustice Goodwin Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Apr il 14, 2011

2