From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jordaan Law Firm v. Unimark Gr.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Mar 11, 2009
No. 05-07-01754-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 11, 2009)

Opinion

No. 05-07-01754-CV

Opinion Filed March 11, 2009.

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. CC-06-16074-B.

Before Justices RICHTER, LANG, and MURPHY.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


The Court has before it appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellee asserts the default judgment from which appellants appealed is not final and that appellants did not obtain an order severing the default judgment order from the remainder of the case. Appellants did not respond to the motion to dismiss. We have reviewed the record. Appellants' notice of appeal specifically states it is from an interlocutory default judgment order. Nothing in the record shows a final judgment has been rendered or that appellants obtained an order severing the default judgment from the remainder of the case. Courts of appeals have jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments or otherwise appealable interlocutory orders. See 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 appellants bring their appeal from a non-appealable interlocutory order, we have no jurisdiction over the appeal. We grant appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.


Summaries of

Jordaan Law Firm v. Unimark Gr.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Mar 11, 2009
No. 05-07-01754-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 11, 2009)
Case details for

Jordaan Law Firm v. Unimark Gr.

Case Details

Full title:PATRICIA RILEY JORDAAN AND THE JORDAAN LAW FIRM, PLLC, Appellants v. THE…

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Date published: Mar 11, 2009

Citations

No. 05-07-01754-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 11, 2009)