Court Opinion

ID: 9892279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-23 07:09:16.338166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:57.864141
License: Public Domain

In the
        Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
         at Fort Worth
     ___________________________
          No. 02-23-00280-CV
     ___________________________

MICHAEL BRYANT MARTINEZ, Appellant

                    V.

  JASMINE REBECCA BROWN, Appellee

  On Appeal from the 325th District Court
          Tarrant County, Texas
      Trial Court No. 325-708018-21

 Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.
 Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant Michael Bryant Martinez, proceeding pro se, seeks to appeal the trial

court’s sanctions order that ordered him to pay $1,800 to Appellee Jasmine Rebecca

Brown.1

      On August 29, 2023, we notified Martinez of our concern that we lack

jurisdiction over this appeal because the sanctions order does not appear to be a final

judgment or appealable interlocutory order. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d

191, 195, 200 (Tex. 2001) (holding that, generally, appeals may be taken only from

final judgments or interlocutory orders authorized by statute); Sanchez v. Spiral Diner &

Bakery, No. 02-22-00185-CV, 2022 WL 2753446, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

July 14, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“A sanctions order that does not dispose of all

parties and all issues is not an appealable order.”); Rohani v. Tastee Kreme #2 Inc.,

No. 05-21-01161-CV, 2022 WL 632168, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 4, 2022, no

pet.) (mem. op.) (“It is well-settled that an appeal may not be taken from an

interlocutory discovery sanctions order.”).

      We informed Martinez that unless he or any party desiring to continue the

appeal filed a response by September 8, 2023, showing grounds for continuing the

appeal, we could dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3.

      1
       From what we can glean from the sanctions order and Martinez’s notice of
appeal, the sanctions order was entered due to Martinez’s failure to respond to
discovery and/or to provide documents responsive to discovery requests.

                                              2
Martinez has not filed a response. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Sanchez, 2022 WL 2753446, at *1;

Rohani, 2022 WL 632168, at *1.

                                                   Dana Womacki

                                                   Dana Womack
                                                   Justice

Delivered: October 19, 2023

                                         3