Opinion
NUMBER 13-16-00172-CV
02-08-2018
GLENN ROMERO, JUAN GONZALEZ, RICARDO BENAVIDES AND ROMERO, GONZALEZ & BENAVIDES, L.L.P. Appellants, v. ZACHARIAS GONZALEZ, Appellee.
On appeal from the 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Contreras and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez
Petitioners, Glenn Romero, Juan Gonzalez, Ricardo Benavides, and Romero, Gonzalez, & Benavides, L.L.P., filed a petition with this Court requesting permission to appeal the trial court's order denying their motion pursuant to rule 91a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss a suit for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty filed by respondent Zacharias Gonzalez. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a.
Section 51.014 pf the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code sets out the interlocutory orders the Legislature has given us jurisdiction to review. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). Section 51.014 does not provide for the appeal of an order denying a 91a motion to dismiss. Thus, it appears that the Legislature has not given parties the right to appeal such an interlocutory order, and here, Petitioners agree that the trial court's order is not appealable.
Petitioners bring a petition for permission to appeal an interlocutory order that is not otherwise appealable. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.3(c) provides that "[t]he petition must be filed within 15 days after the order to be appealed is signed." TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(c). Under rule 28.3(d), "[t]he court of appeals may extend the time to file the petition if the party: (1) files the petition within 15 days after the deadline, and (2) files a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b)." Id. 28.3(d).
The order Petitioners attempt to appeal was signed by the trial court on January 7, 2016. The deadline for filing a petition in this court was January 22, 2017. See id. 28.3(c). The deadline to file a motion for extension time to file the petition was February 6, 2016. See id. 28.3(d). Petitioners did not file their petition for permissive appeal until March 21, 2016, and they did not file any motion for extension of time to file the petition. Therefore, pursuant to rule 28.3(d), we lack jurisdiction over this petition for permissive appeal.
Accordingly, we DISMISS the petition for permission to bring an interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction.
/s/ Rogelio Valdez
ROGELIO VALDEZ
Chief Justice Delivered and filed the 8th day of February, 2018.