Marcos Gonzalez v. Durango Midrise, LP, a Texas Limited Partnership D/B/A Hemisview Village
Marcos Gonzalez v. Durango Midrise, LP, a Texas Limited Partnership D/B/A Hemisview Village
Opinion
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 6, 2021 No. 04-20-00613-CV Marcos GONZALEZ, Appellant v. DURANGO MIDRISE, LP, A Texas Limited Partnership d/b/a Hemisview Village, Appellee From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020CV00649 Honorable J Frank Davis, Judge Presiding
ORDER On November 19, 2020, appellant, Marcos Gonzalez, filed a notice of appeal challenging the county court’s “Order Granting Motion for Withdraw of Counsel” signed on November 5, 2020. In his notice, he states this is an accelerated appeal to an interlocutory order. A copy of the clerk’s record was then filed on December 29, 2020. It shows that this is a forcible detainer case that is currently set for trial on March 8, 2021.
In general, an appeal may be taken only from either a final judgment or interlocutory order as deemed appropriate by the legislature; otherwise, we may not exercise appellate jurisdiction over a case. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 196 (Tex. 2001). A judgment is final for appellate purposes if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record, and section 51.014 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code sets out which interlocutory orders are appealable. Id.; see TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014. “An order granting a motion to withdraw as counsel is not an appealable interlocutory order.” Davis v. Alcatel USA, Inc., No. 05-07-00060-CV, 2007 WL 475332, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 15, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)).
Because it appears we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal, we ORDER appellant to file a written response in this court by January 20, 2021, showing cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). If appellant fails to satisfactorily respond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See id. R. 42.3(c). If a supplemental clerk’s record is required to establish this court’s jurisdiction, appellant must ask the trial court clerk to prepare one and must notify the clerk of this court that such a request was made. All deadlines in this matter are suspended until further order of the court.
_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 6th day of January, 2021.
___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.