Summary
dismissing appeal of discovery sanctions order because it was not appealable interlocutory order or final judgment
Summary of this case from Wade v. Bacon Corp.Opinion
No. 05-15-01315-CV
03-17-2016
IN THE INTEREST OF J.R., ET AL.
On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 14-01406-W
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart
Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers
Before this Court is an appeal from an interlocutory order granting a motion for discovery sanctions against appellant, intervenor, in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. Based on a review of the clerk's record, the Court directed appellant to file a jurisdictional letter brief explaining how this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal. Appellant responded but did not specifically address this Court's jurisdiction. Because the order is interlocutory and not appealable by statute, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
This Court has jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments or interlocutory orders authorized by statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1(a). A final judgment is appealable if it disposes of all parties and all issues. Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. A severed interlocutory order is final and appealable if it is separated into a separate action and the order of severance disposes of all claims without indicating further proceedings are required in the severed action. Tanner v. Karnavas, 86 S.W.3d 737, 743-44 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, pet. denied). A sanctions order that does not dispose of all parties and all issues is not an appealable interlocutory order. Kamel v. Advocare Int'l, L.P., No. 05-15-01295-CV, 2016 WL 836809, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 4, 2016, no pet. h.) (mem. op.); see also First Nat. Bank of Giddings, Tex. v. Birnbaum, 826 S.W.2d 189, 190 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992, no writ).
Appellant timely filed a letter brief alleging her attorney said the trial court's order was final and her only course of action was to appeal the order. But the appellant did not cite to a statute or any case law qualifying the order as an appealable interlocutory order. The record shows the order did not dispose of appellant's petition in intervention or the underlying suit affecting the parent-child relationship. Accordingly, the order is not a final appealable judgment. See In re A.N., No. 05-15-01235-CV, 2015 WL 7769586, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 3, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding a judgment terminating the parental rights of the father is not an appealable judgment when the parental rights of the mother are still pending and the father has not filed a motion to sever); see also Thompson v. Beyer, 91 S.W.3d 902, 904 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, no pet.) (stating a dismissal order becomes final and appealable if severed from plaintiff's claims against other defendants).
This Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal because the discovery sanctions order is not a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order authorized by statute. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/
ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS
JUSTICE 151315F.P05
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 14-01406-W.
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers. Chief Justice Wright and Justice Stoddart participating.
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
We ORDER that appellee Texas Department of Family and Protective Services recover its cost, if any, of this appeal from appellant Tabitha Fitzpatrick. Judgment entered this 17th day of March, 2016.