Court Opinion

ID: 9365186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-23 07:09:07.180257+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.485595
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
                             FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

                                               ORDER

Appellate case name:       David Patrick Daniel v. Jennifer Leigh Morris

Appellate case number:     01-22-00319-CV

Trial court case number: 2019-78634

Trial court:               61st District Court of Harris County

       The following six motions are pending in this case: (1) appellee Jennifer Leigh Morris’s
motion to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory; (2) appellant David Patrick Daniel’s “Agreed Motion
To Sever Appeals;” (3) appellant David Patrick Daniel’s “Agreed Motion to Stay Appeal;”(4)
appellee Philip Placzek and Placzek Law, PLLC’s “Second Motion to Extend Appellees’ Brief
Deadline;” (5) appellee Jennifer Leigh Morris’s “Third Motion to Extend Appellees’ Brief
Deadline;” and (6) appellee Jennifer Leigh Morris’s “Motion for leave to Obtain Rulings.” This
order addresses each of the pending motions.
                                             Discussion
        On April 26, 2022, appellant, David Patrick Daniel, filed a notice of appeal from the trial
court’s interlocutory order signed on April 25, 2022, granting appellee Jennifer Morris’ motion for
summary judgment (the “Morris SJ Motion”). On May 26, 2022, Morris filed a motion to dismiss
the appeal as interlocutory because “Appellant’s claims against Philip Placzek and Placzek Law,
PLLC, as asserted in Appellant’s [First Amended] Petition have not been resolved or disposed of.”
         Although Morris’s motion to dismiss was well-founded when filed, the trial court
subsequently signed a final judgment on August 29, 2022, that (1) granted Phillip Placzeck and
Placzeck Law PLLC’s motion for summary judgment (the “Placzek SJ Motion”) and (2) “makes
final its previous summary judgment in favor of Defendant Jennifer Leigh Morris and against
Plaintiff David Patrick Daniel, Jr.” The judgment provides that it “disposes of all issues and parties
and is a final, appealable judgment.”
       On August 31, 2022, Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment,
challenging the trial court’s granting of the Morris SJ Motion and its subsequent granting of the
Placzeck SJ Motion.
     Appellant filed a brief on August 30, 2022, which only addresses the trial court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Morris.
       On November 1, 2022, appellant filed an Agreed Motion to Sever Appeals requesting that
our Court sever the trial court’s granting of the Placzek SJ Motion into a separate appeal. In other
words, Appellant requests that the current appeal only address the trial court’s granting of the
Morris SJ Motion and that we create a separate appeal for the trial court’s granting of the Placzek
SJ Motion in the final judgment.
                                  Rulings on Pending Motions
       Appellee Morris’s motion to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory is denied because, as
discussed above, a final judgment was subsequently entered in the underlying case.
        Appellant’s Agreed Motion to Sever Appeals is denied. The motion provides no authority
for the relief requested and Appellant incorrectly appears to believe that including both summary
judgment rulings in the same appeal was a mistake, asserting that “For reasons unknown to the
parties, the appeal of the Placzek MSJ was docketed in the appeal of the Morris MSJ.” The
summary judgment rulings both arise from the same underlying case number and thus are properly
included in the same appeal. Indeed, the final judgment in which the trial court granted the Placzek
SJ Motion must be included in this appeal or the appeal would be an interlocutory appeal subject
to dismissal.
        Appellant’s related Joint Motion to Stay Appeal is denied. Appellant is ordered within 30
days from the date of this order to: (1) supplement the record to include documents regarding the
final judgment; and (2) file an amended brief addressing the final judgment. Appellees’ briefs will
be due 30 days after appellant’s amended brief is filed.
        In light of these rulings, Appellee Placzek’s December 9, 2022 motion to extend appellee’s
briefing deadline and appellee Morris’s December 13, 2022 motion to extend appellee’s brief
deadline are both dismissed as moot. Appellee Morris’s January 13, 2023 “Motion for Leave to
Obtain Rulings” is further dismissed as moot.
       It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Gordon Goodman___________
                               Acting individually

Date: ____January 19, 2023______