Opinion
Appellate case number: 01-17-00492-CV
09-28-2017
Steven Moody v. Success Holding, LLC, Deborah Guillory, and Thomas Benson
ORDER AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS Trial court case number: 2016-58409 Trial court: 189th District Court of Harris County
Appellant, Steven Moody, has filed a "Motion for Extension of Time to File to Show Cause of Proof to Obtain Administrative Judges Order Permitting the Filing of This Appeal." Moody, who has been declared a vexatious litigant and is subject to a pre-filing order, requests additional time to respond to this Court's notice of intent to dismiss the appeal unless he filed proof that he had obtained an order permitting the filing of the appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.103(a) (West 2014). The motion is granted. Any response to this Court's notice is due to be filed no later than 30 days from the date of this order.
Further, Moody attempts to appeal from the trial court's October 21, 2016 "Order Voiding Default Judgment." This Court generally has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and specific types of interlocutory orders that the legislature has designated as appealable orders. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447-48 (Tex. 2011). The Court's records do not indicate that the trial court has signed a final judgment disposing of all parties and claims in trial court case number 2016-58409 or an appealable interlocutory order. See Moody v. Guillory, No. 01-16-00907-CV, 2017 WL 1505608, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 25, 2017, no pet.); see, e.g., Tex. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory order).
And to the extent that the trial court has signed an appealable order or judgment, the Court's records indicate that Moody's notice of appeal from the October 21, 2016 order may not have been timely filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a) (requiring notice of appeal to be filed within thirty days after judgment signed or ninety days after judgment signed if party timely files motion for new trial, to modify judgment, or to reinstate, or request for findings of fact and conclusions of law); 26.1(b) (requiring notice of appeal in accelerated appeal to be filed within twenty days after judgment or order signed); 26.1(c) (requiring notice of restricted appeal to be filed within six months after judgment signed); 28.1(b) (providing filing motion for new trial, other post-trial motion, or request for findings of fact and conclusions of law does not extend time to perfect accelerated appeal of interlocutory order).
Accordingly, unless Moody causes to be filed a clerk's record or supplemental clerk's record containing documents demonstrating that this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal, or files a written response, with a detailed explanation and citations to relevant portions of the record, statutes, rules, and case law, demonstrating that this Court has jurisdiction of the appeal, the Court may dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). Moody's response, if any, is due in this Court within 30 days of the date of this order.
It is so ORDERED. Judge's signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd
[×] Acting individually [ ] Acting for the Court Date: September 28, 2017