IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
JULY 24, 2006
______________________________MARIA DIAZ, APPELLANT
V.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., APPELLEE _________________________________
FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 92,456-B; HONORABLE JOHN BOARD, JUDGE _______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINIONMaria Diaz perfected an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of appellee Southwest Airlines Co. in her negligence suit against it. The parties have filed an agreed motion asserting they have entered a settlement agreement. The motion requests this court set aside the trial court's judgment without regard to the merits and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of a judgment in accordance with the parties' agreement. This disposition is authorized by Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2)(B) and 43.2(d). Finding the motion complies with the requirements of Rules 6.6 and 42.1(a), we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for rendition of judgment in conformity with the parties' agreement.
Having disposed of this appeal at the parties' express request, we will not entertain a motion for rehearing and our mandate shall issue forthwith.
Per Curiam
n of filing a law suit against Clark, but rather to investigate an actual innocence claim. However, despite the representations made by appellant in his brief, the clerk's record reveals that his original petition alleges that he "seeks to depose Mr. Warren L. Clark, in order to investigate a potential claim arising out of the trial of Petitioner. . ., wherein the deponent may have committed legal malpractice resulting from his representation of Petitioner."
Rule 202 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure permits the taking of a deposition to either perpetuate or obtain testimony for use in anticipation of suit, or to investigate a potential claim or suit. Tex. R. Civ. P. 202.1 (a)-(b) (Vernon Supp. 2005). The ruling of a trial court is a final appealable order if the deposition sought is against a third party against whom suit is not contemplated. IFS Security Group, Inc. v. Am. Equity Ins., 175 S.W.3d 560, 563 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.); Thomas v. Fitzgerald, 166 S.W.3d 746, 747 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005, no pet.). On the other hand if the request for discovery is sought from a person against whom there is a suit contemplated or pending, the ruling of the trial court is interlocutory. IFS Security Group, 175 S.W.3d at 563; Thomas, 166 S.W.3d at 747. In this case the record clearly demonstrates that appellant is seeking discovery from his former lawyer with an intent to file a legal malpractice case and, accordingly, the order of the trial court is interlocutory in nature.
Our jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals is specified by statue. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998). There is no statute authorizing interlocutory appeal from an order denying a deposition against a person suit is contemplated against; therefore, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice