Court Opinion

ID: 9881415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-02 15:10:23.078896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:08:46.422872
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued September 28, 2023

                                     In The

                             Court of Appeals
                                    For The

                         First District of Texas
                            ————————————
                             NO. 01-22-00018-CV
                           ———————————
   D & R USA ENTERPRISE, INC., SAHERISH BUSINESS, INC., D/B/A
    TEXAS FOOD MART; AND SAMODA, INC., D/B/A AMIGO FOOD
                      MART, Appellants
                                       V.
   SCF RC FUNDING IV, LLC; ESSENTIAL PROPERTIES REALTY
TRUST, LLC, A/K/A SCF REALTY GROUP, LLC; MOUNTAIN EXPRESS
  OIL COMPANY; AND TRUJO WADUD, INDIVIDUALLY, Appellees

                   On Appeal from the 127th District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                      Trial Court Case No. 2021-47779

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      This appeal arises from a dispute over title, ownership, and the right to

possession to real property between Appellants D&R USA Enterprise, Inc., Saherish
Business, Inc. d/b/a Texas Food Mart, and Samoda, Inc. d/b/a Amigo Food Mart and

Appellees SCF RC Funding IV, LLC, Essential Properties Realty Trust, LLC a/k/a

SCF Realty Group, LLC, Mountain Express Oil Company, and Trujo Wadud.

Appellants sued Appellees for civil conspiracy, fraud, tortious interference, trespass

to try title, and declaratory judgment.

      Appellants requested temporary injunctive relief, which the trial court

granted. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order and later a temporary

injunction against Appellees, also ordering Appellants to post a bond. On December

17, 2021, the trial court signed an order dissolving the temporary injunction, and

later, on December 22, 2021, it signed five separate orders granting summary

judgment in favor of Appellees on Appellants’ claims. On January 18, 2022,

Appellants filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s order dissolving the

temporary injunction and the five summary judgment orders signed by the trial court.

They also filed an emergency motion requesting we stay the proceedings in the trial

court pending their appeal. This Court granted the motion, issuing an order staying

the proceedings in the trial court pending adjudication of the present appeal.

      Prior to Appellants’ filing their notice of appeal and this Court’s issued stay,

Appellees Essential Properties Realty Trust, LLC and SCF RC Funding IV, LLC set

a hearing on their application for release of the temporary injunction bond for

                                          2
January 19, 2022. The trial court signed an order on January 19, 2022, granting the

application for release of the bond.

        On appeal, Appellants argue the (1) trial court’s January 19, 2022 order

granting Essential Properties Realty Trust, LLC’s and SCF RC Funding IV, LLC’s

motion for release of the temporary injunction bond was an abuse of discretion

because it violated this Court’s stay, and (2) the trial court’s December 22, 2021

orders granting summary judgment are void because they were signed after a final,

appealable judgment of dismissal for lack of prosecution had been rendered in this

case.

        We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

                                       Background

        Appellants D&R USA Enterprise, Inc. (“D&R”), Saherish Business, Inc. d/b/a

Texas Food Mart (“Saherish”), and Samoda, Inc. d/b/a Amigo Food Mart

(“Samoda”) filed suit against Appellees SCF RC Funding IV, LLC (“SCF”),

Essential Properties Realty Trust, LLC a/k/a SCF Realty Group, LLC (“Essential”),

Mountain Express Oil Company (“Mountain Express”), and Trujo Wadud

(“Wadud”) for civil conspiracy, fraud, and tortious interference. D&R also asserted

claims against Appellees for trespass to try title and declaratory judgment.

        Appellants also sought injunctive relief against Appellees, which the trial

court granted. On August 5, 2021 and September 2, 2021, the trial court entered

                                           3
orders granting temporary restraining orders against Appellees, each time ordering

Appellants to post a $10,000 bond. Later, on September 16, 2021, the court issued

a temporary injunction against Appellees, ordering Appellants to post a $62,000

bond. The bonds, totaling $82,000, were deposited into the registry of the court.

      In November 2021, Appellees separately moved for partial summary

judgment on Appellants’ claims. Mountain Express and Wadud filed a no-evidence

motion for partial summary judgment on Appellants’ claims for civil conspiracy,

fraud, and tortious interference, and D&R’s claim for trespass to try title. Essential

filed a no-evidence motion for partial summary judgment on D&R’s claims for civil

conspiracy, fraud, tortious interference, and trespass to try title. Essential also filed

no-evidence summary judgment motions on Samoda’s and Saherish’s civil

conspiracy, fraud, and tortious interference claims. And SCF filed a traditional and

no-evidence motion for partial summary judgment on D&R’s claims for trespass to

try title and declaratory judgment.

      On December 10, 2021, Appellants’ trial counsel, Sanjay Chadha, filed a

motion to withdraw, stating Appellants had terminated his services effective

December 9, 2021. On December 11, 2021, Essential and SCF filed a Motion to

Dissolve the temporary injunction issued by the trial court on September 16, 2021.

                                           4
A.    December 13, 2021 Hearing

      The trial court set a hearing for 10:30 a.m. on December 13, 2021. Appellants

failed to appear. Appellants’ counsel, who had filed his motion to withdraw the prior

Friday, appeared at the hearing. He informed the trial court of his filed motion to

withdraw, and explained he could no longer represent the Appellants because they

had terminated his services. The trial court announced its intention to dismiss

Appellants’ claims for want of prosecution and on its own motion, set a hearing on

the matter for December 17, 2021. The trial court also set Essential’s and SCF’s

Motion to Dissolve the temporary injunction for the same day.

B.    December 17, 2021 Hearing

      Appellants failed to appear at the December 17, 2021 hearing. At the

beginning of the hearing, the trial court observed that Appellants were not present

and stated:

      This Court is dissolving the [temporary injunction] in this matter. And
      this Court will dismiss D&R’s case. They sought 30 days to get
      counsel. They can file a motion to reinstate within those 30 days.

      Since they’re not here—they were ordered to be here twice now. No
      one has shown up. They obviously are not wanting to prosecute this
      case and based on this Court’s motion as of last week, this Court said
      it would set this on the DWOP docket for today, they’re not here.
      The case will be dismissed for want of prosecution.

                                         5
The trial court asked Essential’s and SCF’s counsel, Mr. Fettner,1 whether he had

filed “a DWOP order,” and Mr. Fettner replied he had filed an order dissolving

the temporary injunction, but not an order dismissing Appellants’ claims for want

of prosecution. The trial court stated it had already signed the order dissolving

the temporary injunction.

      When Mr. Fettner offered to draft a DWOP order, the trial court informed him

it was not necessary because the trial court had DWOP forms it would use instead.

The trial court asked the trial coordinator for a form order dismissing the case in its

entirety.   The trial court then asked Appellees’ counsel if they had pending

counterclaims, to which they responded:

      Mr. Fettner: Your Honor, we do and Wadud does and so does Mountain
                   Express but all of our counterclaims are simply frivolous
                   pleading type counterclaims.

      The Court: Well, it’s up to you. Do you want to—do y’all want to drop
                 those counterclaims or do y’all want to proceed with
                 them? Because if I DWOP the case and you still have your
                 counterclaims pending then, I mean, the case isn’t
                 dismissed.

      Mr. Fettner: SCF and Essential will go ahead and nonsuits as well,
                   Your Honor.

      The Court: And do we have any counterclaim claims or cross claims
                 from—is it Mount Global?

1
      SCF is represented by two separate attorneys. Mr. Roten represents SCF on title
      claims, and Mr. Fettner, who also represents Essential, represents SCF on all other
      issues.

                                           6
Mr. Fettner: Mountain Express and Wadud have claims. Ms. Munoz,
             her client has counterclaims also, basically Rule 10 civil
             practice and remedies code 10 and I think maybe 13 as
             well, counterclaims.

Ms. Munoz: I would like to discuss with my client before I agree to
          nonsuit our counterclaims, Your Honor.

The Court: Okay. So it’s not a final, Donnie. Just please dismiss all
           —all [Appellants’] affirmative claims.

Mr. Roten: Your Honor, Chris Roten for SCF. I would just like to join
           with Mr. Fettner. SCF will nonsuit their title claims as
           well.

The Court: Okay, great. I’m trying to make sure I sign all the right—
           so you’ve got two different motions Mr. Chadha. You’ve
           got two different orders, one as to D&R and one as to
           Samoda?

Mr. Chadha: There are three of them, Your Honor. One for [Appellant]
            D&R, one for [Appellant] Samoda and one for [Appellant]
            Saherish.

Mr. Fettner: Although, Your Honor, if the case is being DWOP’ed I
             guess it’s —

The Court: Well, I’m going to end up signing that after I sign [the
           orders granting the motion to withdraw as Appellants’
           counsel], so. The last time we had an in-person hearing
           was the 10th; is that right? Sorry.

Mr. Fettner: It was Monday the 13th.

Mr. Chadha: I believe, it was Monday, Your Honor. I believe it was
           the 13th.

            ...

                                  7
      Ms. Munoz: Your Honor, Counsel for defendant, Mountain Express
                and Turjo Wadud, they are also going to nonsuit their
                counterclaims as well.

      The Court: Thank you, ma’am. So Donnie if you’ll give me a final.

      Trial Coordinator: Yes, sir.

      The Court: So on your order—I’m signing all your orders. Every
                 ordered will be interlineated with plaintiff was ordered to
                 appear in court on December 13th and then again on
                 December 17th. Plaintiff failed to appear—to either
                 time—actually, both times, real party plaintiff failed to
                 appear both times. On December 13th this Court on its
                 own motion set this matter for DWOP on plaintiff’s claims
                 pending the appearance of the real parties on December
                 17th, 2021. No real parties appeared on behalf of
                 plaintiffs. So that’s in your dismissal and then there will
                 be the follow up DWOP order. That way, that way
                 everyone knows what transpired and they can also order
                 the record if they’d like.

      On December 17, 2021, the trial court signed orders granting Appellants’

counsel’s motions to withdraw as to each of the Appellants. The trial court also

signed an order granting SCF’s and Essential’s motion to dissolve the temporary

injunction. The same day, after the hearing, SCF filed a Motion for Applicant’s

Bond, asking it be granted the $82,000 bond previously posted by Appellants, and

presently in the registry of the court.2 SCF scheduled its motion for a hearing on

January 19, 2022.

2
      SCF filed a Supplemental Motion for Application’s Bond on December 28, 2021.

                                        8
      On December 22, 2021, the trial court signed orders granting Appellees’

motions for summary judgment on Appellants’ claims.

C.    January 19, 2022 hearing

      On January 18, 2022, Appellants’ new counsel filed a notice of appeal in the

trial court seeking to appeal the trial court’s December 17, 2021 order dissolving the

temporary injunction and December 22, 2021 orders granting partial summary

judgment in favor of Appellees on some of Appellants’ claims.

      On January 19, 2022, Appellants’ notice of appeal was filed with the Clerk of

this Court. At 10:40 a.m. that same day, Appellants filed in this Court an

“Emergency Motion Requesting Stay of Proceedings In Trial Court Pending

Appeal.” At 12:18 p.m., Appellants, who did not file a motion to stay in the trial

court, filed a letter with the District Clerk’s Office informing the trial court they had

filed a notice of appeal and an emergency motion for stay in this Court, asking the

trial court not to proceed with the previously scheduled 1:30 p.m. hearing on SCF’s

Motion for Application’s Bond.

      At 1:30 p.m., the trial court proceeded with the hearing as scheduled.

Appellants’ counsel did not appear for the hearing. When the hearing began, the

trial court and Mr. Fettner, SCF’s and Essential’s counsel had the following

exchange:

      The Court:    . . . So I don’t know if you saw the correspondence that
                    was sent to the Court this morning.

                                           9
Mr. Fettner: I did see that [Appellants’ new counsel] filed an appeal.

The Court: What’s he appealing? Is anything final in this case?

Mr. Fettner: Well, I think that his argument, Judge, is that when we had
             our hearing on the 17th you made some rulings and at that
             time you asked—you said, We will dismiss these cases,
             and then I said, I will dismiss my counterclaims. I never
             did and the Court never signed anything or said anything
             more than we will dismiss or I will dismiss, and—but he’s
             interpreting those remarks as being actual dismissals and
             so he’s saying everything has been dismissed and
             therefore the case is final.

The Court: Okay. Well, that’s fine. I signed a bunch of summary
           judgments on the 22nd. And I don’t mind—I just wanted
           to know if the case was indeed final or not. Every
           summary judgment I signed on the 22nd is marked
           interlocutory so that’s the cause of my confusion and I
           hope you can appreciate as much as I enjoy the D&R case,
           it's not the only case that I’m working on.

Mr. Fettner: I certainly do.

The Court: So I don’t—it doesn’t matter to me that he appeals it, I
           just—you know not showing up today. And I don’t even
           know and he’s did he file an emergency motion to stay in
           this court? No, he filed it in the appellate court. So I
           haven’t seen a stay from the appellate court, have you?

Mr. Fettner: I have not.

The Court: Okay. And he’s been invited to participate today; is that
           correct?

Mr. Fettner: Well, I didn’t notice him, Your Honor, because he’s not in
             the case. I sent notice to the three defendants whose
             attorney withdrew but he obviously knows about it
             because he discusses this and asks for the emergency stay
             of the court of appeals. So he certainly knows we’re
             having this hearing today.
                                  10
      The Court: Yeah. I mean, that’s my understanding as well. He sent a
                 letter to us knowing that we had a hearing today so he
                 definitely had notice. And all we’re doing today is to—
                 you’re trying to get the D&R’s bond as—on a wrongful
                 TI; is that right?

      Mr. Fettner: Yes, Your Honor.

      After hearing Mr. Fettner’s arguments on behalf of Essential and SCF, the

trial court indicated that it would grant the Motion for Applicant’s Bond, stating:

      The Court:    Okay. I don’t see an order in in the file on your—is there
                    an order? Hold on.

      Counsel:      I think there is.

      The Court:    I see it here. It was filed on the 17th. Okay. Sounds good.
                    Thank you, [counsel].

The trial court signed an Order Granting Payment of Applicant’s Bond to SCF and

Essential the same day. At 4:07 p.m. on January 19, 2021, this Court granted

Appellants’ emergency motion and issued an order staying all trial proceedings

during the pendency of the present appeal. The $82,000 registry bond posted by

Appellant and deposited into the registry of the district court has not been released.

                                        Jurisdiction

      On appeal, Appellants argue the trial court’s January 19, 2022 Order Granting

Payment of Applicant’s Bond to SCF is an abuse of discretion because it violated

this Court’s stay. They further argue the trial court’s December 22, 2021 orders

granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees are void because the trial court

rendered judgment dismissing Appellants’ claims for want of prosecution during the
                                            11
December 17, 2021 hearing, and the trial court’s judgment became final when

Appellees’ announced at the same hearing they were nonsuiting their counterclaims.

Thus, Appellants argue, the court was without jurisdiction to issue its summary

judgment orders.

      Appellees filed a motion to dismiss Appellants’ appeal for want of jurisdiction

because (1) Appellants’ notice of appeal of the December 17, 2021 order dissolving

the temporary injunction was untimely, and (2) there is not a final, appealable

judgment in this case, thus the trial court’s December 22, 2021 orders granting

summary judgment are interlocutory, and Appellants do not have a right to bring an

interlocutory appeal challenging such orders. In their response to the motion to

dismiss, Appellants argue (1) the trial court rendered a final, appealable judgment

during the September 17, 2021 hearing because Appellees nonsuited their claims

and the trial court dismissed Appellants’ claims for want of prosecution, and (2)

while the December 22, 2021 orders granting summary judgment are void, they are

also final appealable judgments because “every order entered after [the trial court

rendered judgment on September 17, 2021] was a void but final order by definition

as all claims by all parties were disposed.” Appellants did not address Appellees’

argument that their notice of appeal of the December 17, 2021 order dissolving the

temporary injunction was untimely.

                                         12
A.    Standard of Review and Applicable Law

      Generally, appellate courts only have jurisdiction over appeals from final

judgments and certain interlocutory orders that are made appealable by statute.

Bonsmara Nat. Beef Co., LLC v. Hart of Tex. Cattle Feeders, LLC, 603 S.W.3d 385,

390 (Tex. 2020); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014 (authorizing

appeals from certain interlocutory orders).          A judgment issued without a

conventional trial is final for appeal only if it (1) actually disposes of all claims and

parties before the court, regardless of its language, or (2) states with “unmistakable

clarity” that it is a final judgment as to all claims and all parties. Lehmann v.

Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 192–93 (Tex. 2001); see Patel v. Nations

Renovations, LLC, 661 S.W.3d 151, 154 (Tex. 2023).               Whether a court has

jurisdiction is a question of law, which we review de novo. Bonsmara Nat. Beef

Co., 603 S.W.3d at 390.

      Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 162, “[a]t any time before the plaintiff

has introduced all of his evidence other than rebuttal evidence, the plaintiff may

dismiss a case, or take a non-suit, which shall be entered in the minutes.” TEX. R.

CIV. P. 162; Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. Estate of Blackmon, 195

S.W.3d 98, 100 (Tex. 2006). To take a nonsuit, a plaintiff can either file a written

motion to dismiss its claims or make an “oral motion” in open court. Blackmon, 195

S.W.3d at 100. The nonsuit terminates the party’s claims from the moment the

                                           13
motion is filed or made in open court. Id.; Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d

860, 862 (Tex. 2010) (“It renders the merits of the nonsuited case moot.”). The trial

court’s order dismissing the nonsuited claims is ministerial in nature because

generally trial courts do not have discretion to refuse to dismiss a party’s nonsuited

claims. Blackmon, 195 S.W.3d at 100.

B.    Existence of a Final Judgment

      Appellants argue the trial court’s December 22, 2021 orders granting

summary judgment in favor of Appellees are void because the trial court rendered

judgment dismissing Appellants’ claims for want of prosecution during the

December 17, 2021 hearing and that judgment became final when Appellees

announced at the hearing that they were nonsuiting their counterclaims.3

      Appellees argue there is no final judgment in this case because although they

nonsuited their counterclaims during the December 17, 2021 hearing, there is no

order dismissing their counterclaims. Appellees argue there is also no final judgment

in this case because the trial court did not clearly indicate a present intent to dismiss

Appellants’ claims for want of prosecution during the December 17, 2021 hearing.

See S & A Rest. Corp. v. Leal, 892 S.W.2d 855, 858 (Tex. 1995) (holding to

constitute oral rendition of judgment, trial court must clearly indicate its present

3
      Although not dispositive of the issue, we note Appellants’ argument on appeal is
      contrary to its assertion in the docketing statement filed in this appeal that no final
      judgment has been rendered in this case.

                                            14
intent to render final and complete judgment when words are expressed). According

to Appellees, the record reflects the trial court only expressed its intention to dismiss

Appellants’ claims for want of prosecution in the future. See id. (holding trial court’s

expression of intent to render judgment in future does not constitute present rendition

of judgment); see also James v. Hubbard, 21 S.W.3d 558, 561 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio 2000, no pet.) (holding trial court’s statement “I am going to grant the

divorce in this case,” standing alone, does not indicate present rendition of

judgment); In re M.G.F., No. 2-07-241-CV, 2008 WL 4052992, at *3 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth Aug. 28, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.). (“The trial court’s use of the words

‘will approve’ and ‘will sign’ indicate an intent to render judgment in the future.”).

      Assuming without deciding that the trial court rendered judgment during the

December 17, 2021 hearing dismissing Appellants’ claims for want of prosecution,

the judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it also disposed of Appellees’

counterclaims. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 192 (stating judgment issued without

conventional trial is final for purposes of appeal if it actually disposes of all claims

and parties). Appellants argue that Appellees’ counsels’ oral pronouncements

during the December 17, 2021 hearing that Appellees were going to nonsuit their

counterclaims extinguished the counterclaims at that moment and they suggest that

no further action on the counterclaims was required by the trial court in order for the

trial court’s dismissal of Appellants’ claims for want of prosecution to constitute a

                                           15
final judgment. See Blackmon, 195 S.W.3d at 100 (stating nonsuit extinguishes

party’s claims from moment motion is filed or made in open court and trial court’s

order dismissing claims is purely ministerial). Appellants do not address Appellees’

argument that there is no final judgment in this case because, even if the trial court

had dismissed Appellants’ claims for want of prosecution during the hearing,

Appellees’ announcements of nonsuit did not render the trial court’s judgment final

because there is no signed order dismissing Appellees’ counterclaims.

      The opinion in Davidoff v. GX Tech. Corporation, 134 S.W.3d 514 (Tex.

App.—Waco 2004, no pet.) is on point with respect to whether the trial court must

dismiss nonsuited claims for there to be a final judgment. In Davidoff, Davidoff

sued GX for breach of contract, wrongful termination, and declaratory relief and GX

asserted several counterclaims against Davidoff. Id. at 515. After the trial court

granted GX’s motion for summary judgment on Davidoff’s claims for breach of

contract and wrongful termination and dismissed Davidoff’s declaratory judgment

claim, Davidoff filed a motion for reconsideration. Id. While Davidoff’s motion for

reconsideration was pending, GX filed a notice of nonsuit with respect to its

counterclaims against Davidoff. Id. After GX gave notice of its nonsuit, the trial

court signed an order denying Davidoff’s motion for reconsideration. The order,

however, “did not address the nonsuited counterclaims” and the record did not

contain a separate order dismissing GX’s counterclaims. Id. The court of appeals

                                         16
held there was no “final, appealable judgment” in that case “[b]ecause the trial court

has not signed an order dismissing GX’s non-suited counterclaims.” Id. Thus, a

nonsuit, standing alone, is insufficient to dispose of claims for purposes of appeal.

Id. (holding no final appealable judgment in absence of signed order dismissing

nonsuited counterclaims).

      Although it is a purely ministerial act, an order dismissing nonsuited claims

is necessary to dispose of such claims for purposes of rendering a final, appealable

judgment. See id.; see also Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 192 (stating judgment issued

without conventional trial is final for purposes of appeal if it actually disposes of all

claims and parties). It is undisputed that, as in Davidoff, the trial court did not sign

an order dismissing Appellees’ counterclaims. Because the trial court has not signed

an order officially dismissing Appellees’ counterclaims, there is no final, appealable

judgment in this case. See Davidoff, 134 S.W.3d at 515 (holding no final appealable

judgment in absence of signed order dismissing nonsuited counterclaims); see also

Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 192 (stating judgment issued without conventional trial is

final for purposes of appeal if it actually disposes of all claims and parties).

C.    Interlocutory Appeals

      Because there is no final judgment in this case, the December 17, 2021 order

dissolving the temporary injunction, the December 22, 2021 orders granting

summary judgment, and the January 19, 2022 order awarding Appellants’ injunction

                                           17
bond to Essential and SCF are interlocutory orders.4 We have jurisdiction over the

appeal of an interlocutory order only if the appeal is authorized by statute. See

Bonsmara Nat. Beef Co., 603 S.W.3d at 390.

      We do not have jurisdiction to entertain the merits of Appellants’ appeals of

the trial court’s December 22, 2021 orders granting partial summary judgment or the

January 19, 2022 order awarding the injunction bond to SCF because we have not

found, and the parties have not directed us to, a statute authorizing immediate appeal

of such interlocutory orders. See Lewis v. Select Med. Corp., No. 05-17-00298-CV,

2014 WL 12722632, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 4, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.)

(“There is no statutory authority allowing an appeal of an interlocutory order

granting partial summary judgment.”); see generally Young v. Villegas, 231 S.W.3d

1, 6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (holding court has no

jurisdiction to entertain interlocutory appeal of allegedly void order unless

authorized by statute).

      The trial court’s December 17, 2021 order dissolving the temporary

injunction, however, is an immediately appealable interlocutory order. See TEX.

CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(4) (authorizing appeals from interlocutory

4
      Although Appellants stated in their notice of appeal that they were appealing the
      trial court’s December 17, 2021 order dissolving the temporary injunction,
      Appellants do not present any arguments on appeal challenging the order. Rather,
      Appellants argue the trial court’s January 19, 2022 order awarding Appellants’
      injunction bond to SCF is erroneous because it violated this Court’s stay.

                                          18
order that “grants or overrules a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction”). “The

interlocutory appeal of an order [granting] a motion to dissolve a temporary

injunction is an accelerated appeal, and accordingly, the notice of appeal must be

filed within 20 days of the date of the order [granting] the motion.” Conlin v. Haun,

419 S.W.3d 682, 685 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013); TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b)

(stating that “in an accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal must be filed within 20

days after the judgment or order is signed”); TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1(b) (stating that

accelerated appeal is perfected by filing notice of appeal within time allowed by

Rule 26.1(b)). Absent a timely filed notice of appeal, we must dismiss the appeal

for lack of jurisdiction. In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 927 (Tex. 2005) (holding that

untimely notice of appeal failed to invoke jurisdiction of appellate court).

      The trial court signed the order dissolving the temporary injunction on

December 17, 2021. Appellants’ notice of appeal was thus due twenty days later,

on January 6, 2022. See Conlin, 419 S.W.3d at 685; TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b).

Appellants did not file their notice of appeal in the trial court until January 18, 2022.

Thus, although the trial court’s December 17, 2021 order is immediately appealable,

we do not have jurisdiction to entertain the merits of Appellants’ appeal of this order

because Appellants’ notice of appeal was untimely. In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d at 927

(holding untimely notice of appeal deprives appellate court of jurisdiction).

                                           19
                                   Conclusion

      Because there is no final, appealable judgment or timely appealable

interlocutory order in this case, we grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss, dismiss

Appellants’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and lift the January 19, 2022 stay. Any

pending motions are denied as moot.

                                              Veronica Rivas-Molloy
                                              Justice

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Rivas-Molloy, and Guerra.

                                        20