texas-gulf-trawling-co-inc-marine-railway-inc-zimco-marine-inc ( 2010 )

NUMBER 13-10-00155-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
TEXAS GULF TRAWLING, INC.,
MARINE RAILWAY, INC., ZIMCO MARINE, INC.,
TEXGULMARCO COMPANY, INC., WALTER
ZIMMERMAN AND HARLEY DALE LONDRIE, Apellants,
v.
RCA TRAWLERS & SUPPLY, INC.
AND PATRICIO AHUMADA, JR., Appellees.
On appeal from the 103rd District Court
of Cameron County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Yañez, Garza, and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellants, Texas Gulf Trawling, Inc., Marine Railway, Inc., Zimco Marine, Inc.,
Texgulmarco Company, Inc., Walter Zimmerman, and Harley Dale, argue by four
issues that the trial court erred in granting a bill of review filed by appellees, RCA
Trawlers & Supply, Inc. and Patricio Ahumada Jr., in trial court cause number
2006-07-3152-D. Appellees filed their bill of review seeking to set aside a judgment in
trial court cause number 94-09-4693-D dismissing that cause for want of prosecution.
After a jury trial on the merits of the bill of review, the jury found that neither appellees
nor their counsel had received a ADrop Docket Notice@ or AOrder of Dismissal For Want
of Prosecution@ in the underlying case. The trial court rendered judgment on the jury=s
verdict and entered an order on January 11, 2010, granting the bill of review and
vacating the AOrder of Dismissal For Want of Prosecution@ previously issued in trial
court cause number 94-09-4693-D. This appeal followed.
On June 30, 2010, appellees filed a motion arguing that we lack jurisdiction over
the appeal because the challenged order is interlocutory. Appellees also asked that
we impose sanctions upon appellants for filing a frivolous appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.
45.
We agree that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. An appeal may be
prosecuted only from a final judgment which disposes of all issues and parties in the
case. Tesoro Petroleum v. Smith, 796 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. 1990). A bill of review which
sets aside a prior judgment but does not dispose of all the issues of the case on the
merits is interlocutory in nature and is not an appealable final judgment. Jordan v.
Jordan, 907 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tex. 1995) (citing Tesoro, 796 S.W.2d at 705; Warren v.
Walter, 414 S.W.2d 423 (Tex. 1967)).
2
Because appellants have not shown that the merits of the underlying case, trial
court cause number 94-09-4693, have been ruled on and the case disposed of, we
have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See id. We therefore grant appellees=
motion in part and dismiss the instant appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 42.3(a). Further, having fully considered appellees= request for sanctions, we deny
that request. See TEX. R. APP. P. 45.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
18th day of November, 2010.
3