Opinion
No. 01-09-00420-CV
Opinion issued October 1, 2009.
On Appeal from the 125th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2007-11126.
Panel consists of Chief Justice RADACK and Justices BLAND and MASSENGALE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
After the trial court imposed discovery sanctions on appellants Thomas Sons, Inc., United Seafood, Inc., and Gulf Coast Harvest, Inc., they petitioned this Court for mandamus relief from the December 19, 2008 sanctions order. On April 23, 2009, nearly three months after we denied their petition for mandamus relief and after appellee Seabrook Land Company (?Seabrook?) nonsuited its claims against them, appellants filed a notice of appeal from the same sanctions order. Seabrook has moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, pointing out that it is still prosecuting its claims against other defendants in the trial court action, and the trial court has not severed the nonsuited claims against appellants from the rest of the action.
Appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments and certain interlocutory orders identified by statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). "Only one final judgment shall be rendered in any cause except where it is otherwise specially provided by law." TEX. R. CIV. P. 301. Because the sanctions order does not dispose of all parties and claims in the case, it is not a final judgment. See Hinde v. Hinde, 701 S.W.2d 637, 639 (Tex. 1986). Nor is it an order identified by statute that is subject to interlocutory appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (Vernon 2008); see also TEX. R. CIV. P. 215.2(b)(8); In re Supportkids, Inc., 124 S.W.3d 804, 808-09 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, orig. proceeding) (observing that discovery sanctions order is subject to review on appeal from final judgment). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the sanctions order.
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.