Isabelle Edwards v. Panda Express Inc. Appeal from 95th District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 27, 2019 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-19-00715-CV ISABELLE EDWARDS, Appellant V. PANDA EXPRESS INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 95th District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-18346 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Reichek Opinion by Justice Reichek Isabelle Edwards appeals the trial court’s June 6, 2019 order granting defendant’s motion to compel responses to disclosure and discovery requests. After the clerk’s record was filed, we notified the parties we had concerns regarding our jurisdiction. We asked for jurisdictional letter briefs, and cautioned appellant that the failure to respond could result in our dismissing the case. To date, no responses have been filed. A necessary prerequisite to invoking the jurisdiction of the court of appeals is that, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, the appeal must be from a final, appealable judgment. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Discovery orders are interlocutory in nature and therefore not appealable until after a final judgment is entered. See Pelt v. State Bd. of Ins., 802 S.W.2d 822, 827 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990, no writ) (“It has long been held that a discovery order is interlocutory in nature and therefore nonappealable, in the absence of express statutory authority, until after final judgment may be rendered on the merits of the primary dispute.”); Liu v. Stull, No. 05-16-00024-CV, 2016 WL 1213382, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 29, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding court lacked jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal of discovery granting motion to compel discovery); see also In re Nat’l Lloyds Ins. Co., 449 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (discovery order is reviewable for abuse of discretion for which mandamus is appropriate remedy). Edwards is challenging the trial court’s order on a discovery matter. However, she filed a notice of appeal, not a petition for writ of mandamus. Because the discovery order Edwards challenges is not an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). /Amanda L. Reichek/ AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE 190715F.P05 –2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT ISABELLE EDWARDS, Appellant No. 05-19-00715-CV On Appeal from the 95th District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-18346. Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek, Justices Schenck and Osborne participating. V. PANDA EXPRESS INC., Appellee In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. Judgment entered August 27, 2019 –3–
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
