DISMISS and Opinion Filed March 2, 2021

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-00980-CV DAVID SHANE GRANTHAM, Appellant V. COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE, Appellee On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-10187 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Goldstein Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III Appellant appeals from the trial court’s order granting substitute service of process. Before the Court is appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appellee contends this Court lacks jurisdiction over the order because it is neither a final judgment nor appealable interlocutory order. We agree.

Generally, this Court has jurisdiction over final judgments and certain interlocutory orders as permitted by statute. See Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a). A final judgment is one that disposes of all parties and claims. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. An order granting substitute service of process is neither a final judgment nor an interlocutory order for which an appeal is authorized by statute. See Estate of Harris, No. 02-16-00398-CV, 2016 WL 7157350, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 8, 2016, no pet.) (order on motion for substitute service neither final nor appealable interlocutory order).

Appellant did not file a response to the motion to dismiss. Because the order granting substitute service of process is neither a final judgment nor subject to an interlocutory appeal, we grant appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

/Bill Pedersen, III// 200980f.p05 BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE

–2– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT DAVID SHANE GRANTHAM, On Appeal from the 191st Judicial Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-10187.

No. 05-20-00980-CV V. Opinion delivered by Justice Pedersen, III. Justices Partida- COMMISSION FOR LAWYER Kipness and Goldstein participating.

DISCIPLINE, Appellee In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE recover its costs of this appeal from appellant DAVID SHANE GRANTHAM.

Judgment entered this 2nd day of March, 2021.

–3–