State v. Rick Alvarado, in His Official Capacity as District and County Clerk of Kinney County, Texas, And Kinney County, Texas, by and Through Its Governing Body the Kinney County Commissioners Court, Being James T. 'Tully' Shahan, in His Official Capacity as County Judge Mark Frerich, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner Joe Montalvo, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner Dennis Dodson, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
October 23, 2019

No. 04-19-00715-CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS, ex. rel. Todd A. Durden, In his Official Capacity as County Attorney
of Kinney County, Texas, Relator,
Appellants

v.

Rick Alvarado, In his Official Capacity as District and County Clerk of Kinney County, Texas,
Respondent; and Kinney County, Texas, By and Through Its Governing Body the Kinney
County Commissioners Court, Being James T. “Tully” Shahan, In his Official Capacity as
County Judge; Mark Frerich, In his Official Capacity as County Commissioner; Joe Montalvo, In
his Official Capacity as County Commissioner; Dennis Dodson, In his Official Capacity as
County Commissioner, and Tim Ward, In his Official Capacity as County Commissioner;
Respondent, Intervenor and Real Party in Interest; Todd A. Durden, County Attorney and an
Elected County Officer, Real Party in Interest.
Appellees

From the 63rd Judicial District Court, Kinney County, Texas
Trial Court No. 4863
Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

ORDER
Appellees have filed a plea to the jurisdiction containing a motion to dismiss in each of
these appeals, asserting the orders appellant seeks to appeal are not final, appealable orders.
Appellees attached a copy of the orders to their motion, and the orders state, “The Court requests
Respondent[s] to prepare affidavits in support of their claimed fees and expenses of defense
within thirty (30) days and the Court will make a ruling regarding the award of a reasonable
amount of such fees at a later date.”

“[A]n order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of
every pending claim.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001). Because
the order expressly leaves appellees’ claim for attorney’s fees pending further ruling, appellant is
ORDERED to file a response to the appellees’ motion no later than ten days from the date of this
order showing cause why these appeals should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
 _________________________________
Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 23rd day of October, 2019.

___________________________________
LUZ ESTRADA,
Chief Deputy Clerk