Summary
dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction after trial court withdrew final judgment
Summary of this case from Cole Distribution, Inc. v. VexaPak L.L.C.Opinion
No. 05-11-00161-CV
Opinion Issued May 4, 2011.
On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. DC-07-03161.
Before Justices BRIDGES, LANG-MIERS, and MURPHY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the Court is appellees' motion to dismiss appeal. Appellees assert in the motion that the appeal is moot and the Court lacks jurisdiction because the trial court has withdrawn the January 25, 2011 final judgment of which appellant complains. Appellant has filed a response, affirming appellees' assertions and stating she does not oppose the motion.
Generally, we have jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments, that is, judgments that dispose of all pending parties and claims in the record. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Beckham Grp., P.C. v. Snyder, 315 S.W.3d 244, 245 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.). Orders that do not dispose of all pending parties and claims are interlocutory and, subject to a few mostly statutory exceptions, unappealable until a final judgment is entered. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195; In re Energy Transfer Fuel, L.P., 298 S.W.3d 343, 347 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2009, no pet.).
The notice of appeal here reflects appellant is challenging the January judgment as well a January 20, 2011 order denying her leave to file an amended petition and a September 14, 2010 order granting appellees' motion to exclude witnesses and for sanctions. Appellant does not contend, nor do we find, that either of the complained-of orders falls within one of the exceptions to the general rule that interlocutory orders are appealable only upon entry of a final judgment. Without a final judgment, then, these orders are not subject to our review. See Energy Transfer, 298 S.W.3d at 347.
Because there is no longer a final judgment in this case and neither of the complained-of orders is subject to interlocutory appeal, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195; Beckham Grp., 315 S.W.3d at 245. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).