Opinion
04-23-00665-CV
11-29-2023
Alison MAYNARD and Richard Carlisle, Appellants v. William R. LUCERO, Jacob Vos, Jacob Zimmerman and Mark Bankston, Appellees
From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020-CI-21633 Honorable Tina Torres, Judge Presiding.
Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice, Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice.
ORDER
Irene Rios, Justice.
In the original trial court cause number, 2020-CI-21633, appellants asserted claims against:
1. William Lucero;
2. Jacob Vos;
3. Jacob Zimmerman;
4. Mark Bankston;
5. Leonard Pozner;
6. Doug Maguire; and
7. Elizabeth Williamson.By granting their special appearance, it appears the trial court disposed of the claims against Lucero and Vos and severed those claims into a severed trial court cause number: 2023-CI-11772. Likewise, by granting his special appearance, it appears the trial court disposed of the claims against Zimmerman and severed those claims into another severed trial court cause number: 2023-CI-12586. The trial court disposed of the claims against Bankston when it granted Bankston's motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens' Participation Act ("TCPA").
Generally, this court has jurisdiction over final judgments or interlocutory orders specifically authorized as appealable by statute. See CMH Home v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011) ("Unless a statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal, appellate courts generally only have jurisdiction over final judgments."). A judgment or order is final for purposes of appeal if it actually disposes of all pending parties and claims before the court. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).
Here, it appears there is no final judgment in the original trial court cause number because the claims against Pozner, Maguire, and Williamson remain pending before the trial court. Moreover, we only have interlocutory appellate jurisdiction over a trial court's order denying a defendant's TCPA motion to dismiss. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(12). In this case, the trial court's order granted Bankston's TCPA motion to dismiss. Thus, it appears we do not have jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of that order.
In their notice of appeal, appellants attempt to appeal the trial court's order granting Lucero and Vos's special appearance and the trial court's order granting Zimmerman's special appearance. "As a rule, the severance of an interlocutory judgment into a separate cause makes it final." Diversified Fin. Sys., Inc. v. Hill, Heard, O'Neal, Gilstrap & Goetz, P.C., 63 S.W.3d 795, 795 (Tex. 2001). Although the claims against Lucero and Vos were severed into trial court cause number 2023-CI-11772, and the claims against Zimmerman were severed into trial court cause number 2023-CI-12586, appellants filed their notice of appeal in the original trial court cause number: 2020-CI-21633. Because the claims against Lucero, Vos, and Zimmerman were severed into the severed trial court cause numbers, it appears there is no appealable order or final judgment arising out of the original trial court cause number. See Sauls v. Munir Bata, LLC, Nos. 02-14-00208-CV, 02-14-00214-CV, 2015 WL 3905671, at *3 (Tex. App-Fort Worth June 11, 2015, no pet).
We therefore ORDER appellants to show cause in writing, on or before December 13, 2023, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If a supplemental clerk's record is necessary to establish our jurisdiction, appellants must include in their response written proof that they have requested the supplemental clerk's record and either: (1) the clerk's fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the clerk's fee; or (2) appellants are entitled to appeal without paying the clerk's fee. If appellants fail to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b); see also Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), (c)
We ORDER all other appellate deadlines suspended pending our determination of whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal.