DISMISS; and Opinion Filed October 1, 2013.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-13-01099-CV
THERESA BARNETT, Appellant
V.
DAVID S. CROCKETT, ET AL., Appellees
On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 10-00136-F
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices O'Neill, Lang-Miers, and Evans
Opinion Per Curiam
The Court has before it appellees’ August 28, 2013 motion to dismiss and appellant’s
September 6, 2013 response to that motion. On September 9, 2013, this Court denied appellant’s
motion for damages and invited appellant to file an additional response to the motion to dismiss.
Appellant filed three additional responses, but did not respond to appellees’ argument that
appellant is attempting to appeal an interlocutory sanctions order. This Court does not have
jurisdiction over such an order. See Petito v. Energytec, Inc., No. 05-09-00140-CV, 2009 WL
1286330 at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 11, 2009, no pet.). Accordingly, we DISMISS this
appeal for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
131099F.P05
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
THERESA BARNETT, Appellant On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-13-01099-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. 10-00136-F.
Opinion delivered Per Curiam. Justices
DAVID S. CROCKETT, ET AL., Appellees O'Neill, Lang-Miers and Evans sitting for
the Court.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED for want
of jurisdiction.
It is ORDERED that appellees DAVID S. CROCKETT, ET AL. recover their costs of
this appeal from appellant THERESA BARNETT.
Judgment entered this 1st day of October, 2013.
/Michael J. O'Neill/
MICHAEL J. O'NEILL
JUSTICE
–2–