Opinion
05-22-00196-CV
05-04-2022
RUTH TORRES, Appellant v. TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION, MARIE DIAZ, PURSUIT OF EXCELLENCE, INC., PURSUIT OF EXCELLENCE-TEXAS, LLC, AND PURSUIT OF EXCELLENCE I, LLC, Appellees
On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-08581
Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Garcia
MEMORANDUM OPINION
KEN MOLBERG, JUSTICE
In her notice of appeal, appellant lists twenty-two orders of which she intends to address in the appeal. Because none of the orders listed is a final judgment or appear to be appealable interlocutory orders, we questioned our jurisdiction over the appeal. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (appellate courts generally have jurisdiction only over final judgments that dispose of all parties and claims and interlocutory orders as allowed by statute); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (listing appealable interlocutory orders). We directed appellant to file a letter brief addressing the jurisdictional issue.
In response to our letter, appellant filed both a letter brief and a motion labeled "Relator's Motion for Classification as Writs of Mandamus, Prohibition & Injunction." We denied appellant's motion to reclassify the appeal with a notation that any original proceeding must be initiated with a petition that complies with the requirements set forth in rules of appellate procedure 52.1 and 52.3. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1, 52.3. In her letter brief, appellant does not dispute the absence of a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order. Rather, she asserts we have mandamus jurisdiction to review the orders. Appellant, however, has failed to comply with the requirements for filing an original proceeding and we have already informed her that we will not "reclassify" her appeal.
Because the orders referenced in the notice of appeal are not reviewable by ordinary appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
JUDGMENT
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
Judgment entered this 4th day of May, 2022.