Court Opinion

ID: 9392814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-07 08:14:56.424054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:48.995729
License: Public Domain

Motion Granted, Appeal Dismissed, and Memorandum Opinion filed May 2,
2023.

                                      In The

                    Fourteenth Court of Appeals
                                  ____________

                              NO. 14-23-00113-CV
                                ____________

                 CVS PHARMACY, INC., ET AL., Appellants

                                        V.

                       COUNTY OF DALLAS, Appellee

                   On Appeal from the 152nd District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. 2018-77098

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Before the court is appellee’s motion to dismiss this interlocutory appeal for
lack of appellate jurisdiction. Appellants have together filed a response. We grant
the motion.

      On October 28, 2022, appellants filed with the trial court a document styled
as a “Rule 91A Motion to Dismiss.” The title referred to Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 91a, which provides for motions to dismiss causes that have no basis in
law or fact. The motion raised a variety of reasons why appellee’s claims against
appellants should be dismissed, and one of those reasons was that, ostensibly,
appellee had failed to “submit an expert report within 120 days of the filing of an
answer” contrary to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 74.351(a), a
provision of the Texas Medical Liability Act. The motion quoted Texas Civil
Practice & Remedies Code § 74.351(b) for the proposition that, because of that
deficiency, the trial court had to dismiss appellee’s claims that were based on
appellants dispensing medications. On February 10, 2023, the trial court signed an
order denying the motion in full and describing it as a “Rule 91A Motion to
Dismiss.” This appeal followed.

      The parties agree that the only possible basis for this court to exercise
jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal is Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code
§ 51.014(a)(9).   That provision permits appeals from interlocutory orders that
“den[y] all or part of the relief sought by a motion under Section 74.351(b) [of the
Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code], except that an appeal may not be taken
from an order granting an extension under Section 74.351.” Tex. Civ. Prac. &
Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(9). Where the parties disagree is over the nature of
the motion the trial court denied and, thus, whether Section 51.014(a)(9)
encompasses the trial court’s order.

      We agree with appellee that the motion the trial court denied was a Rule 91a
motion, thus making the trial court’s order unappealable.         In reaching this
conclusion, we emphasize the fact that the motion itself frames the appropriate
legal standard for its resolution as Rule 91a. And as near as can be determined,
insofar as the motion contends Section 74.351(b) makes claims subject to
dismissal, that is part of appellants’ overall argument in the motion that those and

                                         2
other claims should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 91a. Because the substance of
the motion is, indeed, a motion for dismissal under Rule 91a, which is based on
alleged deficiencies with appellee’s claims under Section 74.351(b) and because of
other alleged deficiencies with the claims that have nothing to do with Section
74.351(b), the trial court’s denial of the motion is not appealable.

      Consequently, this court lacks appellate jurisdiction regarding the trial
court’s order denying appellants’ Rule 91a motion. Appellee’s motion to dismiss
is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

                                   PER CURIAM
Panel Consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Wilson.

                                           3