Opinion
No. 02-09-213-CV
Delivered: August 20, 2009.
Appealed from the 96th District Court of Tarrant County.
PANEL: WALKER, McCOY, and MEIER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Appellant Shezad Malik attempts to appeal from the trial court's May 22, 2009 interlocutory order, which granted the Appellees' motion to disqualify him. On July 24, 2009, we sent Malik a letter stating our concern that we may have no jurisdiction over this appeal because the order does not appear to be a final appealable order or judgment, nor does it appear to be an appealable interlocutory order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (Vernon 2008) (listing appealable interlocutory orders); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (providing general rule that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment). We indicated that this court would dismiss this appeal if we did not receive a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal by August 3, 2009. Malik filed a timely response, acknowledging that there is no interlocutory appeal available from the May 22, 2009 interlocutory order disposing of the disqualification motion.
Accordingly, because the order is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
Malik, in his response, requests a writ of mandamus. Because his response does not comply with the requisites for a petition for writ of mandamus, we have sent a noncompliance letter. Should Malik file a compliant petition for writ of mandamus, that petition will be filed in a separate cause number. This opinion addresses and finally disposes of the interlocutory appeal only.