Opinion
NUMBER 13-16-00223-CV
07-07-2016
SHAHIN ZARAIENH, Appellant, v. DALE & KLEIN, L.L.P., KATIE PEARSON KLEIN, AND FERNANDO MANCIAS, Appellees.
On appeal from the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria
Memorandum OpinionPer Curiam
Appellant, Shahin Zaraienh, filed a notice of appeal of a final judgment rendered on March 18, 2016 in an attorney's fee case involving appellees Dale & Klein, L.P., Katie Pearson Klein, and Fernando Mancias. However, on May 31, 2016, the trial court signed an order granting a motion for new trial filed by Dale & Klein, L.L.P. On June 8, 2016, appellee Katie Pierson Klein filed an opposed motion to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction because, in light of the trial court's new trial order, there is no final order subject to appeal in this case. More than ten days have passed and appellant has not filed a response to the motion to dismiss.
In terms of appellate jurisdiction, appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review final judgments and certain interlocutory orders identified by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). An order granting a new trial is an unappealable, interlocutory order. Fruehauf Corp. v. Carrillo, 848 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993) (per curiam). An order granting a new trial is not subject to review either by direct appeal from that order, or, as in the instant case, from a final judgment rendered after further proceedings in the trial court. Cummins v. Paisan Constr. Co., 682 S.W.2d 235, 235 36 (Tex. 1984) (per curiam).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the motion to dismiss, is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because there is no final appealable judgment. Accordingly, we GRANT the opposed motion to dismiss and we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 7th day of July, 2016.