Dismissed and Opinion Filed October 5, 2015
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-15-01011-CV
CRITTER CONTROL, INC. AND KEVIN CLARK, Appellants
V.
GALT STRATEGIES, LLC, Appellee
On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-05281
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang, Evans, and Whitehill
Opinion by Justice Whitehill
This is an appeal from the trial court’s interlocutory order denying Critter Control, Inc.
and Kevin Clark’s (collectively, “Critter Control”) motion to withdraw and/or strike original
answer in favor of a subsequently filed “special appearance and objection to jurisdiction and
original answer subject thereto.” Characterizing the order as an order denying the special
appearance, Critter Control asserts this appeal is authorized by section 51.014(a)(7) of the Texas
Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (a)(7)
(West 2015). Disagreeing with Critter Control’s characterization, Galt Strategies, LLC has filed
a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
We have jurisdiction to consider an immediate appeal of an interlocutory order only
when authorized by statute. See Lehman v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).
Because an appeal from an interlocutory order is an exception to the general rule that appeals
may only be taken from final judgments, we strictly construe statutes authorizing interlocutory
appeals. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011); Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v.
Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 841 (Tex. 2007).
Section 51.014(a)(7) of the civil practice and remedies code allows an appeal from an
interlocutory order granting or denying a special appearance of a defendant under rule 120a of
the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, except in a suit under the Family Code. TEX. CIV. PRAC. &
REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (a)(7). Rule 120a allows a nonresident defendant to challenge the
power of the trial court to exercise jurisdiction over his person or property. See Kawasaki Steel
Corp. v. Middleton, 699 S.W.2d 199, 201 (Tex. 1985); Trenz v. Peter Paul Petroleum Co., 388
S.W.3d 796, 805-06 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.).
A review of Critter Control’s motion to withdraw and/or strike reveals argument only
with respect to why the trial court should withdraw the original answer in favor of the
subsequently filed special appearance. It does not address why the trial court lacks personal
jurisdiction over it. Further, at the hearing on the motion, a record of which Galt attached to its
motion to dismiss, the parties argued only whether the original answer should be withdrawn.
Galt’s motion to dismiss has been on file for more than ten days, and no response from
Critter Control has been filed. Because the record before us does not reflect the trial court
considered the merits of the special appearance, we cannot agree section 51.014(a)(7) of the civil
practice and remedies code authorizes this appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §
51.014(a)(7); Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d at 841.
–2–
Accordingly, we grant Galt’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
151101F.P05
/Bill Whitehill/
BILL WHITEHILL
JUSTICE
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CRITTER CONTROL, INC. AND KEVIN On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District
CLARK, Appellants Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-05281.
No. 05-15-01011-CV V. Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill.
Justices Lang and Evans participating.
GALT STRATEGIES, LLC, Appellee
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
We ORDER appellee Galt Strategies, LLC recover its costs, if any, of this appeal from
appellants Critter Control, Inc. and Kevin Clark.
Judgment entered October 5, 2015.
–4–