Court Opinion

ID: 9378629
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-11 07:09:50.035455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:29.312296
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed March 9, 2023

                                     In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                  __________

                              No. 11-22-00302-CV
                                  __________

                      LARRY BRADSHAW, Appellant
                                        V.
           CUMMINS SOUTHERN PLAINS, LLC, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 358th District Court
                             Ector County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. D-18-07-0767-CV

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Appellant, Larry Bradshaw, filed a pro se notice of appeal from the trial
court’s Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. After this appeal was
docketed, we informed Appellant that it did not appear that the order from which
Appellant attempted to appeal was final and appealable, and we requested that
Appellant provide this court with a response showing grounds to continue this
appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. Appellant filed a response and requested, in part,
that we treat his notice of appeal as a prematurely filed notice of appeal pursuant to
Rule 27 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
      After receiving Appellant’s response, we issued an order abating this appeal
pursuant to Rule 27.2 in order to permit Appellant to obtain, and the trial court to
enter, a final order or judgment over which this court has jurisdiction. In our
abatement order, we explained that the order from which Appellant attempted to
appeal was an interlocutory order regarding discovery. We further stated: “The
denial of a motion to compel discovery may be challenged by a petition for
mandamus, but it is not an appealable interlocutory order.” Rudder v. Hannah,
No. 2-04-112-CV, 2004 WL 1176655, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 27, 2004,
no pet.) (mem. op.).
      Unless specifically authorized by statute, appeals may be taken only from
final judgments. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840–41 (Tex.
2007); Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A judgment
is final and appealable if it disposes of all parties and all claims in the case.
Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. The order that Appellant attempts to appeal is not a
final, appealable order. Rather, it is an interlocutory order from which no appeal is
authorized by statute. See generally TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014
(West Supp. 2022) (permitting appeals from certain interlocutory orders).
      In our December 15, 2022 abatement order, we informed the parties: “If a
final, appealable order or judgment has not been entered by February 28, 2023, we
may dismiss this appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. Because all parties and all claims
have not been disposed of and because Appellant has not obtained a final, appealable
order or judgment as directed by this court in the December 15 abatement order, we
now reinstate the appeal and dismiss it for want of jurisdiction.

                                          2
        This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

                                                                   PER CURIAM

March 9, 2023
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Williams, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1

Trotter, J., not participating.

        1
          Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland,
sitting by assignment.

                                                      3