Court Opinion

ID: 9945640
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 07:12:02.309639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:35.203497
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Opinion Filed February 22, 2024

                                      In the
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-22-01357-CV

                     CHARLOTTE CARROLL, Appellant
                                 V.
                        CC MAPLE, LLC, Appellee

                On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
                            Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-05637-C

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                   Before Justices Reichek, Carlyle, and Miskel
                            Opinion by Justice Carlyle

      Charlotte Carroll sued CC Maple, LLC alleging breach of a contract related

to COVID-19. CC Maple filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment and a

plea to the jurisdiction, both of which were granted. Liberally construed and re-

organized, Carroll’s appellate brief raises three types of complaints concerning the

trial court’s rulings: (1) dismissal after the trial court determined it lacked

jurisdiction; (2) denial of due process and due course of law; and (3) judicial

impropriety. CC Maple did not file a response. We affirm in this memorandum

opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
        The trial court granted CC Maple’s plea to the jurisdiction and no-evidence

motion for summary judgment. Carroll, who appears pro se, argues that “In making

a ruling in a setting which [the trial court judge] stated she had no jurisdiction, she

violated due process.” Carroll also cites the Texas Constitution and argues the trial

court denied her due process and due course of law when it dismissed her claims

despite lacking jurisdiction to reach the merits.

        Courts, however, “always have jurisdiction to determine their own

jurisdiction.” Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137, 146 n.14 (Tex.

2012). “Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.” Fin.

Comm’n of Tex. v. Norwood, 418 S.W.3d 566, 578 (Tex. 2013). Thus, trial courts

must determine whether they have the constitutional or statutory authority to decide

a case at the earliest opportunity. Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133

S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). Contrary to Carroll’s contention, trial courts must

dismiss cases when they lack jurisdiction. See Just Energy Texas I Corp. v. Texas

Workforce Comm’n, 472 S.W.3d 437, 444 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.). Here,

the trial court dismissed Carroll’s case after determining it lacked jurisdiction and

Carroll did not challenge the propriety of the trial court’s determination on appeal.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1 (f) & (i). Thus, we overrule Carroll’s first reorganized

issue.1

    1
        We acknowledge that the reasons supporting the entry of summary judgment despite the
trial court’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction are not clear from the record. Liberally construing

                                                 –2–
       In her second reorganized issue, Carroll argues the trial court deprived her of

due process and due course of law when it dismissed her case based on its conclusion

that it lacked jurisdiction. We disagree because courts must dismiss cases when they

lack jurisdiction. See Just Energy Texas I Corp., 472 S.W.3d at 444. Without

citations to authorities and facts, we decline to hold that courts dismissing cases

based on the absence of jurisdiction violate due process or due course of law

protections when they do so. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1 (g) & (i). We overrule Carroll’s

second reorganized issue.

       Finally, Carroll (1) challenges the trial court’s conduct as improperly partial

and prejudiced and (2) accuses the trial court of participating in ex parte

communications by speaking about her with opposing counsel “in a negative

manner.” A thorough review of Carroll’s brief, however, reveals no citation to any

evidence in the record that supports either of Carroll’s complaints.2 See TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.1(g). Furthermore, our review of the record reveals no evidence of improperly

partial or prejudicial statements and no evidence of ex parte communications. Thus,

we overrule Carroll’s reorganized third issue.

                                  *               *              *

Carroll’s briefs to attack the propriety of summary judgment under these facts, we conclude it was
harmless based on the trial court’s unchallenged conclusion on appeal that it lacked jurisdiction.
   2
         While we acknowledge that Carroll’s appellate brief refers to a “mailed audio file,” this
file is neither part of the clerk’s record nor accessible for our review. “Documents attached to
briefs that are not part of the clerk’s or reporter’s records are not part of the appellate record and
may not be considered by the reviewing court.” In re Estate of Bendtsen, 230 S.W.3d 823, 830
(Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, pet. denied).
                                                –3–
       Having overruled Carroll’s issues on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the

trial court.

                                         /Cory L. Carlyle//
221357f.p05
                                         CORY L. CARLYLE
                                         JUSTICE

                                       –4–
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                   JUDGMENT

CHARLOTTE CARROLL,                             On Appeal from the County Court at
Appellant                                      Law No. 3, Dallas County, Texas
                                               Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-05637-
No. 05-22-01357-CV           V.                C.
                                               Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle.
CC MAPLE, LLC, Appellee                        Justices Reichek and Miskel
                                               participating.

       In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial
court is AFFIRMED.

      It is ORDERED that appellee CC MAPLE, LLC recover its costs of this
appeal from appellant CHARLOTTE CARROLL.

Judgment entered this 22nd day of February, 2024.

                                         –5–