Court Opinion

ID: 9372213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-19 08:12:09.38334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:33.713035
License: Public Domain

Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 14, 2023.

                                      In The

                    Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                              NO. 14-22-00899-CV

                     DANIELA VILLARREAL, Appellant

                                        V.

                 EGNA LEON AND JULIO LEON, Appellees

                    On Appeal from the 334th District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. 2022-40942

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      This is an attempted appeal from an order signed October 28, 2022.
Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con
Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When orders do not dispose of all pending
parties and claims, the orders remain interlocutory and unappealable until final
judgment is rendered unless a statutory exception applies. Bally Total Fitness Corp.
v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842
S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
      The order at issue dismissed with prejudice all of the claims appellant
requested be dismissed pursuant to Section 27.003 of the Texas Civil Practice &
Remedies Code, part of the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act. Appellant also
requested attorney’s fees, costs, and sanctions pursuant to the TCPA. See Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 27.009(a). However, instead of awarding such relief to
appellant, the order scheduled a hearing for a future date on that request. There has
been no indication that appellant’s request has been resolved as of the date of this
order, thus there is no appealable final judgment. See Farm Bureau Cnty. Mut. Ins.
Co. v. Rogers, 455 S.W.3d 161, 164 (Tex. 2015) (per curiam). Moreover, the only
statute which approaches authorizing an interlocutory appeal here solely authorizes
appeals from the “deni[al of] a motion to dismiss filed under Section 27.003” of the
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
§ 51.014(a)(12). However, the trial court granted appellant’s request to dismiss all
claims she wanted dismissed under the TCPA, and such an order is not normally
appealable. See Fleming & Assocs., L.L.P. v. Kirklin, 479 S.W.3d 458, 460 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. denied). The fact that the trial court did not
immediately rule on appellant’s request for monetary relief did not make the
interlocutory order the “deni[al of] a motion to dismiss” that would be immediately
appealable. See Eureka Holdings Acquisitions, L.P. v. Marshall Apartments LLC,
597 S.W.3d 921, 924 (Tex. App.—Austin 2020, pet. denied); Leniek v. Evolution
Well Servs., LLC, No. 14-18-00954-CV, 2019 WL 438825, at *2 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 2, 2019, no pet.). Accordingly, the trial court’s order is
an interlocutory one not subject to immediate appeal.

      On January 26, 2023, notification was transmitted to the parties that the appeal
was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction without further notice unless any
party demonstrated this court had jurisdiction on or before February 6, 2023. See

                                          2
Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a), 42.3(a). No response was filed.

      Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

                                  PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Wilson.

                                         3