Court Opinion

ID: 9898785
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-15 07:09:46.472391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:08.850932
License: Public Domain

Dismiss and Opinion Filed November 13, 2023

                                      In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-00617-CV

     MICHAEL LEWIS AND MICHELLE SHUMATE, Appellants
                          V.
 MICHAEL PORAY AND PAIGE PORAY A/N/F M.P., A MINOR CHILD,
                       Appellees

               On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. DC-23-06449

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                   Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Smith
                           Opinion by Justice Molberg
      Appellants appeal from the associate judge’s “Order denying Defendants’

Plea to the Jurisdiction[.]” Because no appealable order has been signed, we dismiss

the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

      Appellees filed the underlying suit against appellants, assistant principals at

appellees’ son’s high school, seeking a declaratory judgment and temporary

injunctive relief. In response, appellants filed a plea to the jurisdiction. The

associate judge heard argument on the plea at the temporary injunction hearing, and
following the hearing, signed an order titled “Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Temporary Injunction Nunc Pro Tunc.” The order recites in its entirety as follows:

           On June 2, 2023, the Court considered Plaintiff’s motion to grant
      a Temporary Injunction against Defendants Michael Lewis and
      Michelle Shumate.

            After conducting an evidentiary hearing, and considering the
      pleadings and arguments of counsel, the Court DENIES the Request
      for Temporary Injunction. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
      and DECREED that Plaintiffs’ motion for a Temporary Injunction is
      DENIED.

             All other relief requested is hereby DENIED.

      Although appellants appeal from the “Order denying Defendants’ Plea to the

Jurisdiction[,]” no such order was signed. Instead, relying on Thomas v. Long, 207

S.W.3d 334 (Tex. 2006), appellants construed the order denying temporary

injunctive relief as implicitly denying their plea, “because, without jurisdiction, [the

associate judge] did not have the authority to rule on [the] request for [injunctive

relief].” 207 S.W.3d at 339-40 (“Because a trial court cannot reach the merits of a

case without subject matter jurisdiction (citation omitted), a trial court that rules on

the merits of an issue without explicitly rejecting an asserted jurisdictional attack

has implicitly denied the jurisdictional challenge.”).

      In a letter questioning our jurisdiction, we noted that, to the extent the order

denying temporary injunctive relief might have implicitly denied the plea, the order

was not yet appealable because the referring court had not signed it. See TEX. GOV’T

CODE ANN. § 54A.116(b),(c) (together providing that the date an agreed or default

                                          –2–
order is signed by the associate judge is the controlling date for the purpose of an

appeal to an appellate court; an appeal from all other orders signed by the associate

judge is controlled by the date the referring court signs the order). We directed

appellants to file jurisdictional briefing, but although they complied, they failed to

address our concern. Accordingly, on the record before us, we dismiss the appeal.

See id. § 54A.116(b); TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

                                           /Ken Molberg//
230617f.p05                                KEN MOLBERG
                                           JUSTICE

                                         –3–
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                  JUDGMENT

MICHAEL LEWIS AND                              On Appeal from the 191st Judicial
MICHELLE SHUMATE, Appellants                   District Court, Dallas County, Texas
                                               Trial Court Cause No. DC-23-06449.
No. 05-23-00617-CV           V.                Opinion delivered by Justice
                                               Molberg, Justices Reichek and Smith
MICHAEL PORAY AND PAIGE                        participating.
PORAY A/N/F M.P., A MINOR
CHILD, Appellees

      In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

      We ORDER that appellees Michael Poray and Paige Poray a/n/f M.P., a
minor child, recover their costs, if any, of this appeal from appellants Michael Lewis
and Michelle Shumate.

Judgment entered this 13th day of November, 2023.

                                         –4–