Christopher Martinez v. Andrea De La Cruz

Opinion filed November 17, 2011

 

                                                                       In The

                                                                             

  Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

 

                                                         No. 11-11-00299-CV

                                                    __________

 

                           CHRISTOPHER  MARTINEZ, Appellant

 

                                                             V.

 

                                    ANDREA DE LA CRUZ, Appellee

 

 

                                   On Appeal from the 161st District Court

 

                                                             Ector County, Texas

 

                                                  Trial Court Cause No. B-114,187

 

 

                                            M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

 

Upon receiving the docketing statement and a copy of the notice of appeal, it became apparent to this court that no final, appealable order had been entered by the trial court because appellant’s counsel, Sydney S. Weaver, is attempting to appeal an order disqualifying her.  Accordingly, the clerk of this court wrote appellant’s counsel on October 20, 2011, informing her that it did not appear that this court had jurisdiction because of the absence of an appealable order.  The clerk’s letter directed appellant’s counsel to respond in writing by November 4, 2011, and show grounds to continue this appeal.  The clerk’s letter also notified appellant’s counsel that the appeal may be dismissed pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 42.  See Rule 42.3.  Appellant’s counsel responded to the clerk’s letter by filing a mandamus, but she has not shown grounds to continue this appeal.

            Appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments and only those interlocutory orders deemed appealable by the Texas Legislature.  Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); City of Houston v. Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d 810, 811 (Tex. 1993); see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 15.003, 51.014(a), (d) (West Supp. 2011).  A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record. Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195.  There is no final judgment on the merits in this cause, and the underlying action remains pending.  Furthermore, there is no statutory exception that allows appellant’s counsel to appeal the trial court’s interlocutory order disqualifying counsel.  See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195; City of Houston, 849 S.W.2d at 811.

Consequently, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

 

           

                                                                                                PER CURIAM

 

                                                                                               

November 17, 2011

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.