Opinion issued May 2, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 12
- 00477
- CV

——————————— AMERICAN RODSMITHS, INC., ROBERT SCHERER AND SANDRA SCHERER , Appellant s V. GLV INTERNATIONAL, I NC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 152nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2012
- 08551

MEMORANDUM OPINION
In a Texas proceeding to domesticate a state of Washington judgment, appellants, American Rodsmiths, Inc. (“ARS”) , Robert Scherer, and Sandra Scherer , challenge the jurisdiction of a Washington state district court to enter the2 j udgment in favor of appellee, GLV International, Incorporated (“GLV”), against
AR S , Robert Scherer , and “Jane Doe Scherer

. ” C onclud ing that we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal. Background On December 2, 2010 , GLV sued AR S , Robert Scherer, and “Jane Doe Scherer , ” “Husband and Wife and the Marital Community Comprised Thereof” in the Washington state district court for breach of contract , unjust enrichment, and the enforcement of a personal guaranty on a debt. On September 23, 2011, the Washington district court granted GLV summary judgment against AR S , Robert Scherer , and “Jane Doe” Scherer , awarding damages in the amount of $342,497.13. AR S and Robert Scherer appealed the summary judgment on November 22, 2011. On February 9, 2012, GLV filed a petition in the Harris County district court below to enforce the Washington judgment against AR S , Robert Scherer, and his wife, Sandra Scherer. On March 8, 2012, AR S , Robert Scherer , and Sandra Scherer filed a motion , seeking to stay enforcement of the Washington judgment

. 1 They further challenged the judgment on the ground that it was entered against

1 See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 35.006 (Vernon 2008).3 Sandra Scherer in violat ion of her due process rights

. 2 On May 18, 2012, the trial court granted the stay indefinitely. Dismissal This Court notified the parties that it intended to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and invited briefing on th e issue. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a). Ap pellants are challenging the Washington judgment that was rendered final and enforceable in Texas when GLV filed it in the Harris County district court in compliance with the Uniform Enfo rcement of Foreign Judgments Act ( “ UEFJA ” )

. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 35.003 (Vernon 200 8 ) (instructing
di strict court clerk to treat the foreign judgment in same ma nn er as judgment of that court itself); Walnut Equip. Leasing Co. v. Wu , 920 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tex. 1996). The filing of the foreign judg ment eff ectively comprises both a plaintiff’ s original petition and a final judgment. Wu , 920 S.W.2d at 286. The en forcement of a foreign judgment may be stayed. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 35.006 (Vernon 2008). However , section 35.006 does not provide that such a n order i s appealable. And, here, the o rder g ranting the s tay do es not dispose of all the issues and parties, specifically, appellants’ attack on the jurisdiction of the Washington district court. See Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp

. , 39
S.W.3 d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001).

2 See U.S. C ONST . amend. XIV.4 A foreign judgment filed in a Texas court is subject to the same procedures, defenses, and proceedings for reopening, vacating, staying, enforcing or satisfying a judgment as a judgment of the court in which it is filed. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. &
R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 35.003; Wu , 920 S.W.2d at 286. The judgment debtor may then initiate the same defenses and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying a final judgment. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 35.003(c)

. In support of their assertion that this Court should view their motion to stay the enforcement , which included a challenge to the Washington court’s jurisdiction , as a motion for new trial , which was in effect denied, appellants rely

on Moncrief v. Harvey , 805 S.W.2d 20 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1991, no pet.). Appellants acknowledge that their jurisdictional challenge was not addressed by the trial court, but nevertheless, argue that it was overruled by operation of law after seventy

- five days. However, i n Moncrief , the court simply addressed the appellate timetables for attacking a foreign judgment. 805 S.W.2d at 22. The purpose of making a procedural comparison of a motion to contest enforcement of a foreign judgment to a motion for new trial is to note that a trial court has the same extended period of time to review a motion to contest a foreign judgment as
i t would have if a party filed a motion for new trial. Counsel Fin

. Servs, L.L.C. v. David McQuade Leibowitz, P.C. , 311 S.W.3d 45, 52 (Tex. App.

— Sa n Antonio 2010, pet. denied) ( noting that “[ t ] o compel a judgment debtor to perfect an appeal5 within thirty days of the filing of the foreign judgment would minimize the trial court’s opportunity to review the debtor’s motion to contest recognition of the foreign judgment .” ). Thus, the court in Moncrief “merely explain[ed] that for the purposes of appellate timetables, a motion to stop enforcement of a judgment filed pursuant to the UEFJA operates procedurally as a motion for new trial.” Id . at 53. Here, the Harris County district court granted appellants the relief that they requested

— a stay of the enforcement of the Washington judgment. And it did not dispose of all the issues and parties. Accordingly, we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction over the appeal. Conclusion We dismiss the appeal. PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale.