Opinion
NO. 03-17-00770-CV
04-17-2018
Empower Texans, Inc. and Michael Quinn Sullivan, Appellants v. Texas Ethics Commission; Seana Willing in her Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Ethics Commission; Tom Ramsay, Individually and in his Capacity as Commissioner; Paul Hobby, Individually; Steve P. Wolens, in his Capacity as Commissioner; Hugh C. Akin, Individually and in his Capacity as Commissioner; James T. Clancy, Individually and in his Capacity as Commissioner; Wilhelmina R. Delco, Individually; Chris Flood, in his Capacity as Commissioner; Warren T. Harrison, Individually; Mary K. Kennedy, in her Capacity as Commissioner; Robert K. Long, Individually; Chad M. Craycraft, in his Capacity as Commissioner; and Charles G. Untermeyer, Individually and in his Capacity as Commissioner, Appellees
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 53RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GN-14-001252 , HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellants Empower Texans, Inc. and Michael Quinn Sullivan appealed from an interlocutory order granting a plea to the jurisdiction filed by Tom Ramsay, Paul Hobby, Hugh C. Akin, James T. Clancy, Wilhelmina R. Delco, Warren T. Harrison, Robert K. Long, and Charles G. Untermeyer (collectively, "the Individual Defendants"), in which they sought to dismiss claims asserted against them in their individual capacities. Appellants asserted that this court has appellate jurisdiction pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(a)(8) (person may appeal from interlocutory order of district court that grants or denies plea to jurisdiction by governmental unit as that term is defined in section 101.001). We abated the appeal and remanded it to the trial court to clarify whether the order dismissed only those claims brought against the Individual Defendants or whether, as Appellants maintained, the order also dismissed claims against "all the defendants, including those claims made against the Texas Ethics Commission and its commissioners in their official capacity." See Empower Texans, Inc. v. Texas Ethics Comm'n, No. 03-17-00770-CV, 2018 WL 700061, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 2, 2018, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). The trial court signed a "Modified Order" that plainly grants a plea to the jurisdiction filed by the Individual Defendants in their individual capacities and dismisses only claims brought against them in their individual capacities. The district clerk filed a supplemental clerk's record that included the modified order, and we reinstated this appeal.
The Court sought this clarification in order to determine whether it had jurisdiction to consider this interlocutory appeal under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(a)(8). See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(8).
Unless a statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal, the jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final judgments. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 51.012, .014; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). The plea to the jurisdiction was filed by the Individual Defendants in their individual capacities. The interlocutory order appealed from does not grant or deny a plea to the jurisdiction filed by a governmental unit or dismiss any claims against the Texas Ethics Commission or its commissioners in their official capacities. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(a)(8) does not provide a basis for this Court to exercise appellate jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. See Story v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998) (interlocutory order is appealable "only if a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction"). Because we lack appellate jurisdiction to review the trial court's interlocutory ruling on the Individual Defendants' plea to the jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.
/s/_________
Scott K. Field, Justice Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: April 17, 2018