Court Opinion

ID: 9389708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 06:07:43.060483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:29.097144
License: Public Domain

DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 20, 2023

                                    S  In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-00299-CV

               BADGER TAVERN LP, 1676 REGAL JV, AND
         1676 REGAL ROW, DALLAS, TEXAS, IN REM, Appellants
                               V.
                     CITY OF DALLAS, Appellee

               On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-16151

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
        Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein
                         Opinion by Chief Justice Burns
      Before the Court is appellants’ petition for permissive appeal of the trial

court’s March 15, 2023 interlocutory order denying their motion to dismiss

pursuant to rule of civil procedure 91a. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a (concerning

dismissal of baseless causes of action). We strictly construe a statute authorizing

an interlocutory appeal because it is an exception to the general rule that only final

judgments are appealable. See Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d

835, 841 (Tex. 2007); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d)
(requirements for permissive appeal); TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3 (same); TEX. R. CIV. P.

168 (same).

      Rule of Civil Procedure 168 requires that a trial court’s permission to appeal

an otherwise unappealable interlocutory order must be stated in the appealed order.

See TEX. R. CIV. P. 168. Here, the appealed order does not include the trial court’s

permission to appeal. Rather, the trial court signed a separate order on April 17,

2023 granting permission to appeal. This order is not an amended order denying

the rule 91a motion.     Moreover, the April 17th order does not reference the

appealed order. As such, the separate order of permission does not comply with

rule 168. See Heinrich v. Strasburger & Price, L.L.P., No. 01-15-00473-CV, 2015

WL 5626507, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 24, 2015, no pet.)

(dismissing petition for permissive appeal for want of jurisdiction because trial did

not sign a single order that both granted the plea to jurisdiction and granted

permission to appeal in violation of rule 168); Fox v. Buckland, No. No. 02-16-

00453-CV, 2017 WL 1018594 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 16, 2017, no pet.)

(rehearing granted after appellant obtained an amended single order that included

permission); Connor v. Hooks, No. 03-19-00571-CV, 2020 WL 5099967, at *1

(Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 27, 2020, no pet.) (denying petition for permissive

appeal where permission granted in separate order in violation of rule 168 and also

failed to identify controlling question of law).

                                         –2–
      Because the trial court did not sign a single order that both denied

appellants’ rule 91a motion to dismiss and granted permission to appeal the order,

this Court has no jurisdiction over this appeal.      Accordingly, we dismiss the

petition for permissive appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

                                              /Robert D. Burns, III/
                                              ROBERT D. BURNS, III
230299F.P05                                   CHIEF JUSTICE

                                        –3–
                                  S
                          Court of Appeals
                   Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                  JUDGMENT

BADGER TAVERN LP, 1676                     On Appeal from the 134th Judicial
REGAL JV, AND 1676 REGAL                   District Court, Dallas County, Texas
ROW, DALLAS, TEXAS, IN REM,                Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-16151.
Appellants                                 Opinion delivered by Chief Justice
                                           Burns. Justices Molberg and Goldstein
No. 05-23-00299-CV        V.               participating.

CITY OF DALLAS, Appellee

      In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the petition for
permissive appeal is DISMISSED.

      It is ORDERED that appellee CITY OF DALLAS recover its costs of this
appeal from appellants BADGER TAVERN LP, 1676 REGAL JV, AND 1676
REGAL ROW, DALLAS, TEXAS, IN REM.

Judgment entered April 20, 2023

                                     –4–