Jorge Hermida-Lara v. Rosa Rosas ( 2013 )

Opinion issued September 26, 2013
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-13-00639-CV
———————————
JORGE HERMIDA-LARA, Appellant
V.
ROSA ROSAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 310th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2012-69210
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Jorge Hermida-Lara, attempts to appeal from an order denying
his motion to disqualify opposing counsel. We dismiss the appeal.
Appellant filed a motion in the trial court to disqualify opposing counsel.
The trial court denied appellant’s motion. Appellant timely appealed.
Generally speaking, appellate courts have jurisdiction over appeals from
final judgments. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.
2001); N.E. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966). Texas
appellate courts only have jurisdiction to immediately consider appeals from
interlocutory orders if a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction. Stary v.
DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex. 1998). There is no statutory authority,
however, for an appeal from an interlocutory order denying a motion to disqualify
an attorney. See Samuels v. Samuels, No. A14-90-00517-CV, 1990 WL 126600, at
*1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 30, 1990, no writ) (mem. op, not
designated for publication) (“There is no statutory authority for an appeal from an
interlocutory order granting a motion to disqualify an attorney.”); Nat’l W. Life Ins.
Co. v. Walters, 663 S.W.2d 125, 126 (Tex. App.—Austin 1983, no writ) (“[A]n
order denying a motion to disqualify counsel from representation in a civil
proceeding has been held to be an interlocutory order, subject to review by an
appellate court only in the event of an appeal from a judgment after trial of the suit
on its merits.”); Aubin v. Territorial Mortg. Co. of Am., Inc., 640 S.W.2d 737, 742–
43 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, no writ) (“The order disqualifying . . .
counsel for defendant is interlocutory and we are without jurisdiction to consider
this matter upon this appeal.”). Therefore, we have no jurisdiction over this
appeal.
2
After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal for want of
jurisdiction, appellant did not respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f).
We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Massengale.
3