TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-20-00561-CV
Djoulou K. Caldwell, Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Public Safety, Appellee
FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-GN-20-001493, THE HONORABLE SCOTT H. JENKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Djoulou K. Caldwell appeals from the district court’s order granting the Texas
Department of Public Safety’s motion to quash service of citation. However, this Court’s
appellate jurisdiction is limited to appeals of final judgments and certain interlocutory orders
made appealable by statute. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 51.012, .014; Lehmann v.
Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). On January 6, 2021, the Clerk of this Court
advised appellant that it appears this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction over this matter because
the clerk’s record does not contain a final judgment or appealable order. The Clerk requested
that Caldwell file a response by January 19, 2021, demonstrating how we may exercise
jurisdiction over this appeal.
Caldwell did not file a response, but a single line of his brief (filed before this
Clerk’s notice was sent) states that “this Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 51.014(a)(8) in light of the Lower Court’s in personam
jurisdictional findings[.]” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(8) (authorizing appeal
of interlocutory order that “grants or denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit”).
The supreme court has held that a “plea to the jurisdiction” does not “refer to a ‘particular
procedural vehicle,’ but rather to the substance of the issue raised.” City of Magnolia 4A Econ.
Dev. Corp. v. Smedley, 533 S.W.3d 297, 299 (Tex. 2017) (per curiam). The “issue raised” in a
plea to the jurisdiction is whether the court has power to decide a particular dispute. See,
e.g., Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000) (“A plea to the jurisdiction
is a dilatory plea whose purpose is to defeat a claim on jurisdictional grounds regardless of the
claim’s merit.”). To the extent Caldwell argues that the Department’s motion to quash was a
plea to the jurisdiction, we disagree.
To decide a case, a court must possess both “subject matter jurisdiction over the
controversy and personal jurisdiction over the parties.” Spir Star AG v. Kimich, 310 S.W.3d 868,
871 (Tex. 2010). Personal jurisdiction depends “upon citation issued and served in a manner
provided for by law.” In re E.R., 385 S.W.3d 552, 563 (Tex. 2012) (citing Wilson v. Dunn,
800 S.W.2d 833, 836 (Tex. 1990)). The Department argued in its motion to quash that Caldwell
failed to follow the procedure for serving the Department; however, challenging curable defects
in service in a motion to quash does not defeat a suit on jurisdictional grounds. On the contrary,
by filing a motion to quash, a party makes a general appearance and consents to the trial court’s
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 122 (providing that defendant who successfully moves to quash
service will be deemed to enter general appearance after expiration of twenty days); GFTA
Trendanalysen B.G.A. Herrdum GMBH & Co., K.G. v. Varme, 991 S.W.2d 785, 786 (Tex. 1999)
(per curiam) (observing that “a mere challenge to the method of service fails as a special
2
appearance and constitutes a general appearance”); Kawasaki Steel Corp. v. Middleton,
699 S.W.2d 199, 202 (Tex. 1985) (explaining that defendants “may move to quash the citation
for defects in the process, but [their] only relief is additional time to answer rather than dismissal
of the cause”). We therefore conclude that the Department’s motion to quash was not a “plea to
the jurisdiction” for purposes of Section 51.014(a)(8). See Eastland County Appraisal Dist. v.
Peninsula Pipelines (N. Tex.), LLC, 594 S.W.3d 383, 385 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2019, no pet.)
(“If a pleading does not raise an issue that can be jurisdictional, then it is not a ‘plea to the
jurisdiction’ for purposes of an interlocutory appeal.”).
We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(f).
__________________________________________
Edward Smith, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Smith
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: August 4, 2021
3