Opinion
No. 05-08-01085-CV
Opinion Filed September 22, 2008.
On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. DC-07-09622.
Before Justices WRIGHT, LANG-MIERS, and MAZZANT.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Court has before it appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. In the motion, appellee asserts the appeal is interlocutory because it is only from the trial court's order dismissing appellant's case against appellee and that the remaining portions of appellant's case remain pending in the trial court. Appellant did not respond to the motion.
We have reviewed the documents before the Court. Appellant's notice of appeal asserts the appeal is solely from the order dismissing the case against appellee. Appellant's notice of appeal further references other defendants in the trial court. Thus, the face of appellant's notice of appeal indicates the appeal is interlocutory.
Appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments and such interlocutory orders as the legislature deems appealable. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Ruiz v. Ruiz, 946 S.W.2d 123, 124 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1997, no writ). Because appellant is not appealing from a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order, we have no jurisdiction.
We grant appellee's motion to dismiss. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.