Opinion
No. 08-15-00044-CV
02-20-2015
Rosa Serrano, d/b/a The Lens Factory, Appellant, v. Pellicano Business Park, L.L.C., Texas Corporation; City Bank Texas, N.A.; Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, Appellees.
Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7 of El Paso County, Texas (TC# 2013-DCV-3139) ORDER
Pending before the Court is Appellant's motion for temporary orders pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P. 29.3. Before addressing this motion, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction of the appeal. On February 9, 2015, Appellant filed her notice of appeal from four vexatious litigant orders entered by the trial court. The Clerk of the Court notified Appellant of the Court's intent to dismiss the appeal because the orders being challenged did not appear to be subject to an interlocutory appeal. The vexatious litigant orders entered by the trial court are based on two distinct provisions in Chapter 11 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. In two of the orders, the trial court determined that Appellant is a vexatious litigant and ordered her to post security for the benefit of Old Republic National Title Insurance Company and for City Bank Texas N.A. pursuant to §11.051. See TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. §11.051 (West 2002). The statute does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from these two orders. See Almanza v. Keller, 345 S.W.3d 442, 443 (Tex.App.--Waco 2011, no pet.); Pandozy v. Beaty, 254 S.W.3d 613, 618 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 2008, no pet.). Second, the trial court entered two orders prohibiting Appellant from filing, in propria persona, any new litigation in any court without obtaining permission from the local administrative judge. See TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. §11.101 (West 2002 & Supp. 2014). These two pre-filing orders are subject to an interlocutory appeal. See TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. §11.101(c). Therefore, the Court has determined that the appeal will continue but only with respect to these two orders. The Record is due to be filed with this Court on or before March 29, 2015.
Appellant requests that the Court prohibit the trial court from dismissing and severing her counterclaim in the underlying suit if she fails to post the security required by the orders. As discussed above, the two orders requiring Appellant to post security are not subject to an interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, Appellant's motion for temporary orders is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of February, 2015.
PER CURIAM Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
(Hughes, J., not participating)