Court Opinion

ID: 9927484
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-27 20:15:08.419056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:47.360943
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00542-CV

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                    CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

ALICIA GONZALEZ AND
NICOLE TREBILCOCK,                                                       Appellants,

                                              v.

JOHN BLAHA,                                                                 Appellee.

              On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4
                       of Nueces County, Texas.

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

                 Before Justices Longoria, Silva, and Peña
                  Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

      Appellants Alicia Gonzalez and Nicole Trebilock attempt to appeal the trial court’s

November 17, 2023 order granting appellee John Blaha’s motion to dismiss.

      Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that the order from

which this appeal was taken was not an appealable interlocutory order or a final
appealable order. “[A]n order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it

actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally

states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39

S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001). The order clearly states that it was reserving the

determination of appellee’s attorney’s fees for a later date. See Trane US, Inc. v. Sublett,

501 S.W.3d 783, 787 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2016, no pet.) (per curiam) (concluding that

an order dismissing the plaintiff’s claims pursuant to the Texas Citizen’s Participation Act

was not final because it “expressly [left] for future disposition the statutorily-required

award of attorney’s fees and sanctions” (citing TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.

§ 27.009(a))).

        On January 5, 2024, the Clerk of the Court notified appellants of this defect and

warned that if the defect was not corrected within ten days, the appeal would be

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). Appellants failed to correct the defect. Absent

an appealable interlocutory order or final judgment, this Court has no jurisdiction over this

appeal. See Olgetree v. Matthews, 262 S.W.3d 316, 319 n.1 (Tex. 2007); Lehmann, 39

S.W.3d at 195.

        The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellants’ failure to

correct the defect, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of

jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction. 1 See id. R. 42.3(a), (c).

        1 Appellants filed a motion to consolidate this case with appellate cause number 13-23-00547-CV,

also pending before this Court and stemming from the same trial court case. Appellants’ motions are denied
as moot.

                                                    2
                                 CLARISSA SILVA
                                 Justice

Delivered and filed on the
25th day of January, 2024.

                             3