### NUMBE R 1 3 - 1 0 - 2 3 6 - CV 

## C OU R T OF A PPE A LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E XAS CORP US CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG INF ORMATION R EF ERR A L RES OUR CE A pp ellan t, ASS IS TA N C E, IN C ., v . DR . ISM A ELC A NT U, A pp ellee.

On A p p ea l f ro m th e 27 5t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## MEMORA NDUM OP I NI ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld eza n d J u st ic es R o d rig u eza n d Ve la

M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam Appel lan t, Informati on Refer ra l Res ource Ass is tanc e, Inc

. (“ IR RA ”) , appeal s f ro m an order g ra nti ng a ne w

tr ial i n fav or

of a p pel lee , D r. Is mael Can tu. W e di smi ss the app eal.2 I.

Dr. Can tu w as em ployed as the su perint end ento f I RRA’s cha rter sch ool w hen his employ ment c ontractw as not renew ed and he w as sus pended w it h pay . C antu broug ht sui t ag ain st IR RA

for brea ch of cont ra ct and for vi ola ti ons of the Tex as W his tl ebl ow er Act. See gen erally

T EX . G OV ' T C OD E A NN . §§ 55 4.0 01-5 54. 010 (Vernon 200 4 & Sup p. 20 09). IRRA f iled a m otion for sum ma ry judgmen t on gro und s that“Cantu did not f ile his w histleb low er claims w ithin th e ap plicable statu te of limitation s.” On A pr il 20, 2009, the t ri al cour t g ra nted summar

y j udg ment i n fav or

of IR RA and ent ered an orde r stating the “Plaintif f ’s claims un der the Te x as W histleb low er Stat ute are hereby di smiss e d .” IR RA

fil ed a moti on to se v er C antu’ s w his tl ebl ow er cl aims from t he re maini ng unadj udi cat ed c auses of act ion

. On A pr il 24, 2009, the tr ial co urt g ra nted the moti on to sev er . On Jul y 9, 2009, how ev er , the tr ial co urt s et as ide the sev erance order on g ro unds “t here w as no not ic e of hear ing se nt t o couns el of record nor a hear ing se t” on the mot ion for s ev erance. On M arch 8, 20 10, the tr ial co urt ent ered a new order g ra nti ng IR RA ’s moti on for sev erance, thus maki ng the w his tl ebl ow er cl aims “ final and appeal abl e.” Ca n tu f il ed a moti on for new

trial o n M arch 18, 2 010, and I RRA fil ed a re spons e the re to. On Apr il 8, 2010, the t ri al cour

t g ra nted Can tu’ s mot ion for n ew tr ial on t he w his tl ebl ow er cl aims and expressly

v acat ed h is pre v ious orde rs g rantin g sum ma ry judgmen t and sev ering these caus es of acti on. II. This appeal ensue d. This ca use is cu rrentl y before the C our

t on v ar iou s p endi ng mo tions. Cantu f iled a “Motion to Dismiss the Ap pea l” on groun ds tha t the order subje ct3

to ap peal i s a non- appeal abl e int er loc utor y order

. IR RA filed a respon se to t he moti on to dis mis s c ontendi ng thatthe Cou rthas j ur is dicti on ov er the appeal bec ause it is an a ppeal of an i nterlo cut or

y order deny ing a mot ion for s ummary j udg ment t hat i s b ased on an ass erti on of

immunity

by a po li ti cal su bdi v is ion of the S tate. SeeT EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 51. 014 (a)(5) ( Verno n 20 08). Cant u f iled a reply through w hich he argues, int er al ia, thatIR RA ’s moti on for summar y j udg ment is base d on the s tatut e of li mita ti ons and i s n ot ba sed on i mmunity , and further , IR RA does not q ual ify as a po li ti cal su bdi v is ion of the St ate. C antu thus al leg es that IR RA i s n ot en ti tl ed to an i nter loc utor y appeal

. Al so pe n d in g be fo re th e Co u rtis I RRA ’s “ M o ti o n to St a y Pe n d in g T ria l, ” th ro u gh w hic h IR RA

as ser ts thatthe under ly ing matte r is se t for tr ial on O cto ber 4, 2010, and t hat iti s e nti tl ed to a s tay

of the tr ial proceed ing s under the c iv il pract ic e and re medies co de. See id

. 51. 014 (b),(c) (Verno n 200 8). Cantu f iled a respo nse to the m otion to stay, again urg ing the Cou rtto dis mis s the app eal on g ro unds that IR RA ’s st atus as an o pen enroll ment c har

ter sc hool does not q ual ify i t as a “ pol it ica l subdi v is ion ” for pur poses of bringing a n i n t erlocut oryapp eal, a nd a gain conte ndin g tha t the mot ion for sum ma ry ju d gm e n twa s b a s e d o n li m it a t io n s a n d n o tim m u n it y. III

. After fully

rev iew ing and cons idering thes e matt ers, w e reach the fol low ing conc lus ion s. F irst, the moti on for summary

judg ment ati ss ue i s n ot “ based on a n as ser ti on of immuni ty ” as re q uired for an int er loc utor

y appeal. T he summary judg ment motion does not a ddress IR RA ’s al leg ed s tatus as a g ov er nmental e n tity or pol it ic al subdi v is ion or oth erw ise assert in any way t hatI RRA is imm une f rom suit. T he mo tion doe s n ot referen ce sov ereig n, g ov er nmental , or off ic ial i mm u n ity

. Rat her , i t s eeks su mmary j udg ment4

“b ecaus e C antu did n o t f ile h is w his tl ebl ow er cl aims w it hin the appl ic abl e s tatut e of li mita ti ons. ” Ac cordin g ly , the mot ion does not fall w it hin se cti on 51. 014( a) (5 ) as a “ moti on for s ummary

j udg ment t hat i s b ased on an ass erti on of i mmunity .” Seco nd, a s a general ru le, an o rd er g ra nti ng a ne w

tr ial i s a n i nter loc utor

y order that is not re v iewabl e on direct appeal from t he order

or from a final j udg ment. See W ilkins v. Metho dist He alth Care Sys ., 160 S. W .3d 5 59, 5 63 ( Tex . 200 5) ( “E x cepti n v er y l imi ted ci rc umstan ces , an order g ra nti ng a mot ion for n ew tr ial rendered w it hin the per iod of the tr ial co urt' s p len ar

y pow er i s n ot rev iewabl e on appeal .” ); Cum m ins v. Pai san Con str

. C o. , 682 S.W .2d 235 , 236 (Tex. 1984 ). U nde r Texas proced ure, ap pel la te cou rts possess jurisdiction to conside r imme diate app eals of interlocut oryorders only if a statu te explicitly confers a ppel lat e j ur is dicti on. Sta ry v. D eBo rd , 967 S.W .2d 352 , 352 -53 (Te x . 199 8); Eichel b e rg er v. Hayton , 814 S.W .2d 179 , 182 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [1st Dist.] 19 91, w rit deni ed)

. A s tatut e aut hor iz ing an appeal f ro m an inter loc utor y order is in derog ati on of the g eneral ru le that onl y

final j udg ments are appea lab le; thus , we s tr ictl y co nst ru e s uch a sta tute. W

alk er Sand, Inc . v

. Bayto wn Asp halt M

ater ial s, Ltd

. , 9 5 S

. W

. 3 d 5 1 1 , 5 1 4 (T e x. App .–Hou ston [1st Dist.] 20 02, no pe t.). IR RA co ntends thatthe tr ial co urt’ s o rd er g ra nti ng a ne w

tr ial and v acat ing the order g ra nti ng summary

judg ment is one that is “effect iv ely deny ing sa id moti on.” I RRA c it es no author ity i n fav or of thi s p ro posi ti on. Mo re ov er , t he te rmi nol og y uti li z ed in th e o rd e r at is sue g ra nts Can tu’ s moti on for new tr ial and v acat es, rather than deni es, the moti on for summar y j udg ment. C f. Mon c ada v . Br own , 202 S.W .3d 794 , 797 -9 8 (Tex. App. –W aco 200 6, no pet. ) (allow ing rev iew of an order grant ing a mo tion for new trial w hich expressly5

deni ed a moti on for summar y j udg ment bas ed on immu n it y); see Pa rrish v. Brooks , 856 S.W .2d 5 22, 5 26 ( Tex . Ap p.–Texar kana 1993, w ri t den ied ). I n the insta nt c ase, noth ing prev ents the tr ial co urt from re consid e rati on of the moti on for summar y j udg ment und er re v iew or a mot ion for s ummary j udg ment premis ed on immuni ty

. Third, I RRA c ontends thati t i s a “ pol it ic al subdi v is ion ” of t he Stat e tha t i s a ppeal ing the d eni al of “a moti on for summar y j u d gm e n t that i s b ased on an ass erti on of i mmunity by a. . . po litical subdivisi on o f the sta te , ” and is accordin gly entitle d to an interlocut ory appeal under

the ci v il pract ic e and re medies co de. SeeT EX . C IV . P RA C & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 51. 014( a) (5 ). I RRA i s a n open- enroll ment c har ter sc hool

. See , e.g ., Rosen c rans v . Al tsc hul er , 161 S.W .3d 517, 518 (Tex

. App.–E ast lan d 2004, no p et.) ; seeT EX . E DUC . C ODE A NN . §12 .101, 12.1 05 ( Ver non 2006)

. W e not e tha t s ome co urts hav e c oncl uded t hat t hey lac k ju ris d icti on ov er

i nter loc utor

y appeal s reg ardin g pl eas to t he j ur is dicti on byopenenroll ment char

ter school s becaus e theydo not q ual ify as g ov er nmental uni ts. See LTTS Cha rter Sch., Inc . v

. Pa las ota , 293 S.W .3d 8 30, 8 31- 32 ( Tex . A p p .– Da llas 2009, pet. g ra nted) ; LTTS Charte r Sch. , Inc. v. C2 Con str. , 288 S.W .3d 3 1, ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2009, pet. g ra nted) ; Ter

re ll v. T ex. Ser enity Acad., Inc ., 290 S. W .3 d 4 2 4 , (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [14th Dis t.] May

21, 2009, no pet.)

. Howev er , w e need not a ddress thi s i ss ue herein

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 7.1, 47.4. IV. T he Cou rt, having examine d an d f ully conside red the pen ding mot ions, resp onse s, and replies, an d the clerk’s record f iled in this cau se, is of t h e o p in io n t h at IRRA’s a t t em pte d inte rlocuto ry app eal sho uld be dismissed . Cantu’s “Motion to Dismiss” is6

GRAN TED. IR RA ’s “ Mo ti on to Sta y ” is D EN IED

. The appeal i s D ISM ISSE D.

PERC UR IAM Deliv ered and f iled this 17th day of September , 201 0.