Opinion
NO. 14-21-00200-CV
05-20-2021
ROBERT KLINEK, Appellant v. KHALED ALATTAR AND LUXEYARD, INC., Appellee
On Appeal from the 113th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2012-54501
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an attempted appeal from an order signed April 6, 2021 regarding post-judgment discovery. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When orders do not dispose of all pending parties and claims, the orders remain interlocutory and unappealable until final judgment is rendered unless a statutory exception applies. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). No statutory exception permits an interlocutory appeal from an order regarding post-judgment discovery. Sintim v. Larson, 489 S.W.3d 551, 556 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.).
On May 4, 2021, we notified the parties of this court's intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless any party filed a response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal on or before May 14, 2021. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). In response, appellant filed a letter asking this court to treat the appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus. We deny the request. There is nothing in the record of this court that complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3. Appellants will be required to file a petition that complies with Rule 52 in order to pursue that remedy. See Maadani v. Ward, 611 S.W.3d 460, 462 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.).
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant's emergency motion to stay filed April 29, 2021, is moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Hassan.