DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 6, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00710-CV WIKD, LLC, Appellant V. MAXIMILIANO GOMEZ AND ZACHARY TYLER HILBOURN, Appellees On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 001-00910-2024 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Pedersen, III Opinion by Chief Justice Burns The trial court granted appellees’ separate motions to dismiss brought pursuant to the Texas Citizen’s Participation Act (TCPA). See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 27.003. The trial court awarded appellees their attorney fees pursuant to section 27.009(a)(1) in an amount to be determined at a separate hearing.

See id. § 27.009(a)(1) (trial court shall award successful movant reasonable attorney’s fees). Because the orders grant the motions to dismiss but leave pending the issue of attorney’s fees, we questioned our jurisdiction and directed the parties to file letter briefs addressing the jurisdictional issue.

Generally, this Court has jurisdiction over final judgments that dispose of all parties and claims and certain interlocutory orders as permitted by statute.

See Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(1)–(17) (listing appealable interlocutory orders including an interlocutory order denying a TCPA motion to dismiss).

Because the amount of attorney’s fees awarded to defendants remains to be determined, the orders are neither final judgments nor subject to interlocutory appeal. See Garcia v. Semler, No. 05-20-00761-CV, 2021 WL 1381156, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 13, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of interlocutory order granting TCPA motion to dismiss but leaving amount of attorney’s fees to be determined).

In its letter brief, appellant fails to address this Court’s authority that is directly on point. See id. Instead, appellant asserts the appealed orders are final because the determination of the amount of attorney’s fees is a ministerial act because the TCPA requires that fees be awarded to a successful movant. A ministerial act is one that does not involve judicial discretion. See In re Rodriguez, 77 S.W.3d 459, 461 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, orig. proceeding). A determination of the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees under the TCPA involves judicial discretion. See Sullivan v. Abraham, 488 S.W.3d 294, 299 (Tex. 2016). Because the determination of the amount of attorney’s fees awarded to a successful movant under the TCPA requires judicial discretion, it is not a ministerial act. See id. –2– Alternatively, appellant asks that we abate the appeal to allow the trial court to determine the amount of attorneys’ fees to which appellees are entitled. We decline to do so. Because the orders granting appellees’ TCPA motion to dismiss are unappealable interlocutory orders, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

/Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III 240710F.P05 CHIEF JUSTICE

–3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT WIKD, LLC, Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1, Collin County, Texas No. 05-24-00710-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. 001-00910- 2024.

MAXIMILIANO GOMEZ AND Opinion delivered by Chief Justice ZACHARY TYLER HILBOURN, Burns. Justices Molberg and Appellees Pedersen, III participating.

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

It is ORDERED that appellees MAXIMILIANO GOMEZ AND ZACHARY TYLER HILBOURN recover their costs of this appeal from appellant WIKD, LLC.

Judgment entered August 6, 2024

–4–