Court Opinion

ID: 3089324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 03:39:48.3106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:50.032263
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-13-00142-CV

                              COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

DEBRA JALUFKA,                                                                   Appellant,

                                              v.

4 JLJ, INC.,/J4 OILFIELD SERVICE, 4 JLJ, INC.,
AND JOHN JALUFKA,                                  Appellees.
____________________________________________________________

              On appeal from the 94th District Court
                   of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION
                  Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Perkes
                       Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

       Appellant, Debra Jalufka attempted to perfect an appeal from an order signed on

January 25, 2013, in cause no. 2012-DCV-2686-C. Upon review of the documents

before the Court, it appeared that the order attempting to be appealed is not appealable.

On April 9, 2013, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could
be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3.

Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date

of receipt of the notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant

failed to respond to the Court’s notice.

       Appellant is attempting to appeal an “Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate

Summary Judgment, Re-schedule Summary Judgment Hearing and/or Reinstate Case.”

In terms of appellate jurisdiction, appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review final

judgments and certain interlocutory orders identified by statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con

Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).

       The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's failure to

correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for

want of jurisdiction.     Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF

JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a),(c).

                                                                      PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
9th day of May, 2013.

                                             2