C HIEF J USTICE

C AROLYN W RIGHT

J USTICES

D AVID L. B RIDGES

M OLLY F RANCIS

D OUGLAS S. L ANG

E LIZABETH L ANG

- M IERS

R OBERT M. F ILLMORE

L ANA M YERS

D AVID E VANS

D AVID L EWIS

A DA B ROWN

C RAIG S TODDART

B ILL W HITEHIL L

D AVID J. S CHENCK L ISA M ATZ

C LERK OF THE C OURT

(214) 712

- 3450

theclerk@5th.txcourts.gov

G AYLE H UMPA

B USINESS A DMINISTRATOR

(214) 712

- 3434

gayle.humpa@5th.txcourts.gov

F ACSIMILE

(214) 745

- 1083

I NTERNET

WWW

. TXCOURTS

. GOV /5 THCOA

. ASPX 

# Court of Appea ls

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

600 C OMMERCE S TREET

, S UITE 200

D ALLAS

, T EXAS 75202

(214) 712

- 3400



## January 30, 2015

Mr. Joseph Wesley Dauphinot

Dauphinot Law Firm

900 W. Abram St.

Arlington, Texas 76013

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 05

- 14

- 01450

- CV

Trial Court Case Number: DC

- 12

- 14434

Style: Patrick Thobe v. The University of Texas Southwestern Medi cal Center

Dear Mr. Dauphinot:

The Court has reviewed the clerk’s record and has a question concerning its jurisdiction

over the appeal. Specifically, it appears the judgment is not final. Generally, this Court has

jurisdiction only over appeals from f inal judgments. See Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d

191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A final judgment is one that disposes of all pending parties and claims.

Appellant filed suit against The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center,

Southwestern Medical Foundation, The University of Texas System Medical Foundation, and the

Board of Regents of the University of Texas System. Appellant is appealing three orders signed

on October 24, 2014 granting the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center’s no

evi dence motion for summary judgment, traditional motion for summary judgment, and plea to

the jurisdiction. It appears appellant’s claims against Southwestern Medical Foundation, The

University of Texas System Medical Foundation and the Board of Regents of the University of

Texas System remain pending. It appears that appellant filed a notice of nonsuit of its claims

against these three defendants on May 22, 2013. 1 

## A notice of nonsuit is not effective until the

trial court signs an order. See Park Place H ospital v. Estate of Milo , 909 S.W.2d 508, 510 (Te x. 1999). Thus, it appears appellant’s claims against these defendants remain pending.

So that this Court can determine its jurisdiction over the appeal, you are requested to file,

by FEBRUARY 10, 2015 a j urisdictional letter of no more than 3 pages explaining how this

Court has jurisdiction over this appeal. Appellee may file a responsive letter brief of no more

1 The notice of nonsuit appears on the trial court’s website but is not in the clerk’s record filed with this Court.

## 2

than 3 pages within 10 days of appellant’s brief. No extension of time will be granted. If e ither

party will be relying on information not in the record before this Court, that party must obtain a

supplemental clerk’s record from the trial court containing that information.

The current deadline for appellant’s brief on the merits is suspended. A fter it has

received briefs regarding the jurisdictional issue, the Court will either: (1) order the appeal

dismissed for want of jurisdiction; or (2) notify the parties by letter that the Court appears to

have jurisdiction over the appeal and the deadlin e for appellant’s brief on the merits. We caution

appellant that failure to file a jurisdictional brief by February 10, 2015 may result in dismissal

of the appeal without further notice.

Respectfully,

/s/ Lisa Matz, Clerk of the Court

c c: Mr. William Deane

Assistant Attorney General

P.O. Box 12548

Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

LM/rz