From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bundy v. Houston

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
Mar 22, 2017
NO. 03-17-00090-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 22, 2017)

Summary

dismissing appeal of order transferring venue for lack of jurisdiction

Summary of this case from Smith v. State

Opinion

NO. 03-17-00090-CV

03-22-2017

Harry E. Bundy, Jr., Appellant v. Adesa Houston d/b/a Adesa, Inc., Appellee


FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 146TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 285,918-0, HONORABLE JACK WELDON JONES, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Harry E. Bundy, Jr., acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal challenging only the district court's order granting a motion to transfer venue. However, as a general rule, a trial court's order on venue is interlocutory, and "[n]o interlocutory appeal shall lie from the trial court's venue determination." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.064(a); see also Boudreau v. Jaikaran, No. 05-05-00544-CV, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 6245, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 8, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that court lacked jurisdiction over appeal from interlocutory order transferring venue). Without a final judgment or otherwise appealable order, we may not exercise appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).

In the underlying suit Bundy also purported to represent a partnership pro se, which he refers to as a "non-appearing plaintiff." However, a partnership must be represented by counsel. Simmons, Jannace & Stagg, L.L.P. v. Buzbee Law Firm, 324 S.W.3d 833, 833 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.). Because the partnership is not represented by counsel and is not appearing before the trial court, Bundy is the only plaintiff, and the statute permitting interlocutory appeals from certain venue rulings involving multiple plaintiffs does not apply here. Cf. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.003.

On February 24, 2017, this Court requested that Bundy file a written response demonstrating this Court's jurisdiction over his appeal. Bundy's response did not do so.

Bundy's response requested an extension of time to file his brief and to obtain a copy of the reporter's record.

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

/s/_________

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Field and Bourland Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: March 22, 2017


Summaries of

Bundy v. Houston

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
Mar 22, 2017
NO. 03-17-00090-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 22, 2017)

dismissing appeal of order transferring venue for lack of jurisdiction

Summary of this case from Smith v. State
Case details for

Bundy v. Houston

Case Details

Full title:Harry E. Bundy, Jr., Appellant v. Adesa Houston d/b/a Adesa, Inc., Appellee

Court:TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

Date published: Mar 22, 2017

Citations

NO. 03-17-00090-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 22, 2017)

Citing Cases

Smith v. State

064(a); Tex. R. Civ. P. 87(6); see also In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 259 (Tex. 2008) (orig.…

Mack v. State

064(a); Tex. R. Civ. P. 87(6); see also In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 259 (Tex. 2008) (orig.…