Date: 11-27-2022

Case Style:

Ran Li v. Yaxin Li

Case Number: 02-22-00382-CV

Judge: Brian Walker

Court:

Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

On appeal from thee 96th District Court Tarrant County, Texas

Plaintiff's Attorney: Fort Worth, Texas - Best Divorce
Lawyer Directory

Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.

Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement

Counselor:
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: Eric D. Fein

Description:

Fort Worth, Texas – Divorce lawyer represented Appellant with appealing the trial court’s order requiring the parties to appear for mediation. .

.

Appellant attempts to appeal the trial court’s order requiring the parties to
appear for mediation. On October 5, 2022, we notified Appellant of our concern that
this appeal did not appear to be from a final judgment or appealable interlocutory
order. We informed Appellant that the appeal may be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction unless Appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a
response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a),
44.3. Appellant responded that, because the order requires Appellant to mediate, the
order is a “mandatory injunction” and is therefore an appealable “final interlocutory
order.” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4) (allowing interlocutory
appeal from an order that “grants or refuses a temporary injunction or grants or
overrules a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction as provided by Chapter 65”).
The trial court’s order does not grant or refuse a temporary injunction nor does
it grant or overrule a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction. Instead, the order
requires the parties to appear at mediation; such an order is not an appealable
interlocutory order. See Banc of Am. Inv. Servs., Inc. v. Lancaster, No. 2-04-223-CV, 2004
WL 1879597, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 24, 2004, no pet.) (per curiam)
(mem. op.) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction attempted interlocutory appeal from
order referring case to mediation).

Outcome: Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: