Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2024

Elizabeth Leal and All Other Occupants v. SCG Lasses Townhomes, LLC Successor-In-Interest to Lasses 44, LLC, D/B/A the Townes

Elizabeth Leal and All Other Occupants v. SCG Lasses Townhomes, LLC Successor-In-Interest to Lasses 44, LLC, D/B/A the Townes
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided June 5, 2024

Elizabeth Leal and All Other Occupants v. SCG Lasses Townhomes, LLC Successor-In-Interest to Lasses 44, LLC, D/B/A the Townes

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-24-00241-CV Elizabeth LEAL and All Other Occupants, Appellant v. SCG LASSES TOWNHOMES, LLC Successor-in-Interest to Lasses 44, LLC, d/b/a The Townes, Appellee From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2024CV02045 Honorable Cesar Garcia, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Delivered and Filed: June 5, 2024 DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Our appellate jurisdiction is generally limited to review of final judgments and interlocutory orders that are made appealable by statute. See, e.g., CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011). Here, appellant seeks to appeal a March 28, 2024 “Order for Immediate Issuance of a Writ of Possession.” See TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.9(c)(5)(B)(iv). The challenged order specifies, “Plaintiff’s claims for rent and other damages are reserved for the time of trial.” Accordingly, the order does not appear to be a final judgment that disposes of all pending claims between the parties. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). The 04-24-00241-CV

order also does not appear to be an appealable interlocutory order, see TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE ANN. § 51.014(a), and the rules applicable to forcible detainer suits do not otherwise provide a mechanism for the appeal of such an order. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 510.9(c)(5).

On April 15, 2024, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing by April 30, 2024 why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant did not file a response to our order. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

-2-

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.