Court Opinion

ID: 3102290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 05:21:25.898391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:44:35.442087
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-11-00293-CV
 
                                 COURT
OF APPEALS
 
                     THIRTEENTH
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
                         CORPUS
CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________
 
PRECINCT 2 CONSTABLE
GILBERT ALANIZ,                 APPELLANT,
 
                                                             v.
 
CLAUDIA LINETTE
CHAGOLLA,                                             APPELLEE.
____________________________________________________________
 
                           On
appeal from the 398th District Court 
                                       of
Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
 
                               MEMORANDUM
OPINION
 
                             Before Justices Benavides, Vela,
and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
 

Appellant,
Precinct 2 Constable Gilbert Alaniz, attempted to perfect an appeal from an
order signed on April 14, 2011, in cause no. C-639-11-I.  Upon review of the
documents before the Court, it appeared that the order from which this appeal
is taken is not an appealable order.  On May 26, 2011, 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.  The parties were advised to file a response
within ten days, indicating whether this Court has jurisdiction and the legal
basis for such a position.  Neither party has responded to the Court’s notice. 
The
trial court entered an order granting a verified petition to investigate a
potential claim and ordered the deposition of appellant.  Appellant filed a
notice of appeal of the April 14, 2011 order.  
Presuit
deposition orders are appealable only if sought from someone against whom suit
is not anticipated; when sought from an anticipated defendant, such orders are
considered ancillary to the subsequent suit, and thus neither final nor
appealable.  See Beausoleil v. Reaud, Morgan & Quinn, L.L.P., No.
09-11-00056-CV, 1022 Tex. App. LEXIS 993, (Tex. App.—Beaumont February 11,
2011).
          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 trial court’s
pre-suit deposition order is ancillary to an anticipated suit to which Precinct
2 Constable Gilbert Alaniz is an anticipated defendant.  Because we lack
appellate jurisdiction, the appeal must be dismissed.  Accordingly, the appeal
is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a),(c). 
 
PER
CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
4th day of August, 2011.