### NUMBER 13 - 10 - 00158 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ ESTEBAN HURTADO, ET AL. , A ppellants ,

v. MARIA DE JESUS GAMEZ, ET AL., Appellees

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 39 8th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant s , Esteban Hurtado, Gerardo Hurtado, San Juanita Davila, and Cristel a Hurtado, individually and as next friend of Juan Luis Huerta III, Misael Alejandro Huerta, and Britney An aid Huerta, and Cristela Hurtado as administratrix of the estate of Alma Rosa Huerta, attempted to perfect an appeal from o rder s signed on March 29, 2010, denying their plea in abatement and granting a motion to strike their plea in intervention.2

This cause is before the Court on the clerk’s record, appellants’ brief, and various motions as further described herein. On August 2, 2010, appellees, Maria De Jesus Gamez, individually and as heir of Juan Jose Gamez, deceased, and as next friend of Juan Jose Gamez, Jr., and Carlissa Monique Gamez (“Gamez”) filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction on grounds there is no final or appealable judgment. That same day, these appellees also filed a mo t ion to stay briefing pending ruling on their motion to dismiss the appeal. On August 10, 2010, appellee , Adrian Garcia d/b/a Magnum Force Security (“Magnum”) also filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that neither order subject to appeal is a final judgment, nor are appeals from these orde rs authorized by statute. That same day, this appellee further filed a motion to stay briefing pending ruling on his motion to dismiss the appeal. On August 13, 2010, Magnum also filed a motion for extension of time to file his brief. On August 16, 2010 , appellee , First Mercury Insu r ance Company (incorrectly named as “First Mercury Insu r ance Services, Inc.) filed a motion to dismiss on grounds that no final judgment had been rendered and that it was not a party in the proceedings before the trial court. That same day, this appellee also filed a motion to stay briefing pending a ruling on its motion to dismiss the appeal. On August 19, 2010, appellants filed responses to the Gamez motion to dismiss and motion to stay briefing and Magnum’s motion to dismiss and stay briefing. Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appear s that the order s from which this appeal was taken w ere not final , appealable order s

. In terms of ap pellate jurisdiction, appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review final judgments and certain3

interlocutory orders identified by statute. Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp ., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When a trial court strikes a plea in intervention, t he order generally cannot be appealed until after the trial court renders a final judgment in the case. Metromedia Long Distance, Inc. v. Hughes , 810 S.W.2d 494, 499 (Tex. App.

– San Antonio 1991, writ denied). This case fails to present any circumstance w hich would require the application of an exception to this rule. The Court, having considered the clerk’s record, appellant’s brief, the motions and
responses, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See id. Accordingly, we GRANT the three motions to dismiss filed by appellees. We DISMISS AS MOOT the three motions to stay briefi ng filed by and we likewise DISMISS AS MOOT the motion for extension of time to file a brief filed by First Mercury Insurance Compa ny. T he appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed t he 3rd day of February, 2011

.