Court Opinion

ID: 9881380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-02 11:08:17.600684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:17.306594
License: Public Domain

In the
        Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
         at Fort Worth
     ___________________________
          No. 02-23-00316-CV
     ___________________________

             EX PARTE J.M.

  On Appeal from the 213th District Court
          Tarrant County, Texas
    Trial Court No. D213-E-19509-23

  Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.
    Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      The underlying suit involves an expunction proceeding.            Appellant J.M.

attempts to appeal from the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the State’s answer and

general denial in J.M’s pending expunction proceeding in the trial court.

      On August 31, 2023, we notified Appellant of our concern that we lack

jurisdiction over this appeal because there did not appear to be a final judgment or an

appealable interlocutory order. We stated that unless Appellant or any party desiring

to continue the appeal filed with the court, on or before September 11, 2023, a

response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, it could be dismissed for want

of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. We received a response, but it does

not show grounds for continuing the appeal.

      This court has jurisdiction over appeals only from final judgments and from

interlocutory orders that the Texas Legislature has specified are immediately

appealable. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see, e.g., Tex.

Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014. Here, we have not received a final judgment

pertaining to the expunction, and the Texas Legislature has not specified that a denial

of a motion to dismiss an answer and general denial in an expunction case is

immediately appealable.      See generally Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.

§ 51.014(a)(11)–(12) (specifying appealability of an interlocutory order denying a

motion to dismiss filed under Section 90.007, involving a failure to file an expert

                                           2
report in an asbestos-related or silica-related case, or under Section 27.003, involving a

claim under the Texas Citizens Participation Act).

       Accordingly, because there is no final judgment or appealable interlocutory

order, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a),

43.2(f).

                                                       Per Curiam

Delivered: September 28, 2023

                                            3