Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-15-00315-CV
Cearth FAIRE,
Appellant
v.
FMP SA MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC d/b/a Food Management Partners, LLC; All Jones,
LLC; Allen J. Jones, Individually; Peter Donbavand, Individually; and Jason Kemp, Individually,
Appellees
From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2014-CI-16674
Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Jason Pulliam, Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 3, 2015
PETITION DENIED
Petitioner Cearth Faire seeks permission to appeal an interlocutory order that is not
otherwise appealable. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(a). This court does not have jurisdiction over an
appeal from an interlocutory order unless such an appeal has been authorized by statute. Tex. A &
M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. 2007). By statute, the legislature has
authorized a permissive interlocutory appeal if the party twice obtains permission: first, by written
order from the trial court, and second, by the appellate court granting the petition and accepting
04-15-00315-CV
the appeal. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d), (f) (West Supp. 2014); Hebert v. JJT
Const., 438 S.W.3d 139, 140 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.).
In her petition, Faire cites and seeks permission to appeal under Rule 28.3 and section
51.014(f). Faire argues this court should grant her petition as a matter of judicial economy, but
her petition does not allege that she first obtained permission from the trial court that is required
by the statute she cites. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d) (requiring, inter alia,
the trial court’s written order permitting the appeal); TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(a) (recognizing that the
trial court’s permission to appeal is a prerequisite to petitioning the appellate court); Hebert, 438
S.W.3d at 142 (same). Her petition does not contain a copy of a written order from the trial court
granting its permission to appeal, and Appellees insist the trial court did not give Faire its
permission to appeal.
Because Faire failed to show she complied with the statutory requirements, we deny her
petition for permission to appeal. See Hebert, 438 S.W.3d at 142. Appellees’ motion to dismiss
Faire’s petition is moot. Appellees’ motion for sanctions is denied.
PER CURIAM
-2-