KST Capital, LLC, Tobin Parker, Tobin M. Parker Jr., and W. Schreiner Parker v. American Bank of Commerce ( 2020 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-20-00090-CV
___________________________
KST CAPITAL, LLC, TOBIN PARKER, TOBIN M. PARKER JR., AND W.
SCHREINER PARKER, Appellants
V.
AMERICAN BANK OF COMMERCE, Appellee
On Appeal from the 48th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 048-299865-18
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Womack and Wallach, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack
MEMORANDUM OPINION
KST Capital, LLC, Tobin M. Parker, Tobin M. Parker Jr., and W. Schreiner
Parker filed a notice of appeal stating they intended to appeal three orders: (1) an
order denying their motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (2) an
order denying their motion to quash and for protective order, and (3) an order
resetting the cause for final trial. These orders are interlocutory. We lack jurisdiction
to review interlocutory orders unless a statute specifically authorizes an exception to
the general rule that a party may appeal only from final judgments. See Qwest Commc’ns
Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 336 (Tex. 2000) (per curiam).
Because the interlocutory orders at issue here did not appear to be appealable,
we notified appellants that we were concerned that we may not have jurisdiction to
review them. We asked appellants to file by March 23, 2020, a response showing
grounds to continue this appeal and stated that if they did not, we could dismiss it.
See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3, 44.3. Appellants did not file a response.
We conclude that none of the three interlocutory orders here are appealable.
See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (setting forth generally which
interlocutory orders are appealable); see also In re I.C.D.N., No. 05-17-01426-CV, 2018
WL 580274, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 29, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (noting that a
party may appeal from an interlocutory order denying a governmental unit’s plea to the
jurisdiction); Anderson v. Bessman, No. 14-10-00118-CV, 2010 WL 1380143, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 8, 2010, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.)
2
(dismissing for want of jurisdiction appellants’ appeal of interlocutory order denying
motion to quash and for protective order). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for
want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
/s/ Dana Womack
Dana Womack
Justice
Delivered: April 16, 2020
3