Opinion
04-24-00093-CV
02-16-2024
CITY OF LAREDO, Appellant v. Ramiro RODRIGUEZ, Appellee
From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023CVF001029D3 Honorable Rebecca Ramirez Palomo, Judge Presiding.
ORDER
BETH WATKINS, JUSTICE
In the trial court, appellant the City of Laredo filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over appellee Ramiro Rodriguez's claims against it. Rodriguez filed a response to the City's plea that requested "a continuance on the Plea to allow for the taking of pertinent discovery" as to the jurisdictional issues. On January 17, 2024, the trial court granted Rodriguez's motion for continuance to allow for additional discovery. In its order, the trial court expressly "abate[d] its ruling on the Plea [to the jurisdiction] until the expiration of the July 26, 2024 discovery deadline currently set forth in the Court's Pre-Trial Guideline Order."
On February 6, 2024, the City filed a "Notice of Interlocutory Appeal and in the Alternative Petition for Writ of Mandamus." The City's notice seeks to challenge "the trial court's January 17, 2024 implicit denial of [appellant's] Plea to the Jurisdiction." Alternatively, the City asks us to treat its notice of appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus. On February 15, 2024, Rodriguez filed a motion to dismiss the City's appeal for want of jurisdiction.
On direct appeal, we generally have jurisdiction to review: (1) final judgments that dispose of all parties and all claims; and (2) interlocutory appeals that are authorized by statute. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014, "[a] person may appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court . . . that . . . grants or denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit[.]" TEX. CIV. PRAC. &REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(8).
The order at issue here is not a final judgment, and it does not appear to either grant or deny the City's plea to the jurisdiction. Instead, that order expressly abates the court's ruling on the plea until a later date. Accordingly, the clerk's record appears to show that we lack jurisdiction to review the challenged order in a direct appeal. See id. Additionally, while the City alternatively asks us to treat its notice of appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus, its notice does not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3's requirements for the form and content of a petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3.
For these reasons, we ORDER appellant the City of Laredo to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction by February 26, 2024. If the City wishes for its filing to be treated as an original proceeding, it must file an appropriate petition in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3 as a new cause number.