Shezad Malik v. Thomas Slone and Michael Meyer--Appeal from 96th District Court of Tarrant County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-09-213-CV SHEZAD MALIK APPELLANT V. THOMAS SLONE AND MICHAEL MEYER APPELLEES -----------FROM THE 96TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY ------------ MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 -----------Appellant Shezad Malik attempts to appeal from the trial court s May 22, 2009 interlocutory order, which granted the Appellees motion to disqualify him. On July 24, 2009, we sent Malik a letter stating our concern that we may have no jurisdiction over this appeal because the order does not appear to be a final appealable order or judgment, nor does it appear to be an appealable interlocutory order. 1 See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) ¦ See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. (Vernon 2008) (listing appealable interlocutory orders); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (providing general rule that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment). We indicated that this court would dismiss this appeal if we did not receive a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal by August 3, 2009. Malik filed a timely response, acknowledging that there is no interlocutory appeal available from the May 22, 2009 interlocutory order disposing of the disqualification motion. Accordingly, because the order is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.2 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). SUE WALKER JUSTICE PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ. DELIVERED: August 20, 2009 2 ¦ Malik, in his response, requests a writ of mandamus. Because his response does not comply with the requisites for a petition for writ of mandamus, we have sent a noncompliance letter. Should Malik file a compliant petition for writ of mandamus, that petition will be filed in a separate cause number. This opinion addresses and finally disposes of the interlocutory appeal only. 2
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.
