MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.
MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge
Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800

Defendant's Attorney: Robert J. Glasgow

Description:

Fort Worth, Texas - Divorce lawyer represented Appellant with challenging the trial court of restricted appeal.

Appellant Carol Pool’s purported notice of restricted appeal,
which complains of orders in two trial court causes, this court docketed two separate
appeals: (1) appellate cause number 02-20-00362-CV1 for Carol’s challenges to orders
in trial court cause number 18-765 and (2) this appeal for her challenge to the trial
court’s May 14, 2020 “Order Granting [James Pool’s] Motion to Compel Discovery”
in trial court cause number CV11-1167.
Because we were concerned that we lack jurisdiction over the interlocutory
appeal of a discovery order, we notified Carol that the discovery order does not
appear to be a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order. We informed her
that unless she or another party furnished this court with a response showing grounds
for continuing the appeal, we could dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See
Tex. R. App. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
Carol’s response indicates that she “never intended to perfect two separate
appeals under two different trial court case numbers” and that we “should set aside
[this appeal] as void ab initio and [a] nullity rather than toll dismissals.” Because we
lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we dismiss it.
This court has appellate jurisdiction only of appeals from final judgments and
from interlocutory orders that the Texas Legislature has specified are immediately
1
Appellate cause number 02-20-00362-CV remains pending. Pool v. Pool,
No. 02-20-00362-CV (Tex. App.—Fort Worth filed Nov. 13, 2020).
3
appealable. Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see, e.g., Tex.
Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014. An order granting a motion to compel
discovery is an interlocutory order that is not appealable until after a final judgment.
Clifton v. Burroughs, No. 2-08-404-CV, 2008 WL 5401489, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth Dec. 23, 2008, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); see also Edwards v. Panda
Express Inc., No. 05-19-00715-CV, 2019 WL 4027082, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug.
27, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.

Outcome: The trial court has not yet signed a final judgment in this matter. The
challenged interlocutory order compelling discovery is therefore not yet appealable.
Consequently, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: