Robert Looney and Paula Looney v. State Bar of Texas; Frank Douthitt, Individually and in his Official Capacity; Steven Lee, Individually and in his Official Capacity; Steven Moyick Individually and in his Official Capacity; et al.--Appeal from 250th District Court of Travis County

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-98-00052-CV
Robert Looney and Paula Looney, Appellants
v.
State Bar of Texas, et al., (1) Appellees
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 250TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 97-07939, HONORABLE SUZANNE COVINGTON, JUDGE PRESIDING
PER CURIAM

Robert and Paula Looney brought suit for, among other causes, civil conspiracy based on a disciplinary action taken against Robert Looney by the State Bar of Texas. The Looneys have attempted to appeal from an order that is not a final judgment. In general, with exceptions not applicable to this cause, an appeal may be prosecuted only from a final judgment that disposes of all issues and parties in a case. See North E. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966). We will dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

Appellees, defendants at the trial court, urged a plea in abatement against Paula Looney's claims, asserting the pleadings failed to allege facts that would give Paula Looney standing. The trial court granted that plea with an opportunity to amend the pleadings. The trial court dismissed Mr. Robert Looney's claims in their entirety against various defendants in their official capacities based on a plea to the jurisdiction raising sovereign immunity.

The trial court granted special exceptions lodged by all defendants against the pleadings of the civil conspiracy, civil assault, and libel claims brought by Robert Looney; then dismissed those claims when he failed to amend his pleadings to answer the special exceptions by the time set by the court. The pleadings are rather convoluted; it is unclear whether the rulings made as a result of the special exceptions dismissed all of Robert Looney's claims. It is clear that Paula Looney's claims have not yet been dismissed. The trial court has signed no order purporting to dispose of the cause. The clerk's record shows no order severing Robert and Paula Looney's claims. Accordingly, there does not appear to be a final judgment disposing of all claims and all parties from which an appeal can be properly prosecuted. See Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d at 895; Cowan v. Moreno, 903 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex. App.--Austin 1995, no writ) (no final judgment; appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction).

The parties were notified of this problem by letter dated February 17, 1998 and given the opportunity to tender any supplemental record containing documents which would show that the judgment was final or tender any response showing how the judgment might be appealable. We received no response. (2)

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 43(a).

 

Before Chief Justice Yeakel, Justices Aboussie and Jones

 

Appeal Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

 

Filed: June 4, 1998

 

Do Not Publish

1. Other appellees are: Frank Douthitt, Steven Lee, Steven Moyick, Sherry Germany, Richard Pena, the Honorable Virgil Mulanax, Roy Q. Minton, the Supreme Court of Texas, Chief Justice Tom Phillips, Justice Raul Gonzales, Justice Nathan Hecht, Justice John Cornyn, Justice Craig Enoch, Justice Rose Spector, Justice Priscilla Owen, Justice James Baker and Justice Greg Abbott. All individual appellees were sued in their individual and official capacities.

2. We note that the clerk's record was checked out and signed for by Paula Looney on March 10, 1998. A review of the record after its return shows that it has been disassembled and not reassembled in page-number order, although it appears that none of the record is missing.

" ALINK="#ff0000" BGCOLOR="#c0c0c0">TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-98-00052-CV
Robert Looney and Paula Looney, Appellants
v.
State Bar of Texas, et al., (1) Appellees
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 250TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 97-07939, HONORABLE SUZANNE COVINGTON, JUDGE PRESIDING
PER CURIAM

Robert and Paula Looney brought suit for, among other causes, civil conspiracy based on a disciplinary action taken against Robert Looney by the State Bar of Texas. The Looneys have attempted to appeal from an order that is not a final judgment. In general, with exceptions not applicable to this cause, an appeal may be prosecuted only from a final judgment that disposes of all issues and parties in a case. See North E. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966). We will dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

Appellees, defendants at the trial court, urged a plea in abatement against Paula Looney's claims, asserting the pleadings failed to allege facts that would give Paula Looney standing. The trial court granted that plea with an opportunity to amend the pleadings. The trial court dismissed Mr. Robert Looney's claims in their entirety against various defendants in their official capacities based on a plea to the jurisdiction raising sovereign immunity.

The trial court granted special exceptions lodged by all defendants against the pleadings of the civil conspiracy, civil assault, and libel claims brought by Robert Looney; then dismissed those claims when he failed to amend his pleadings to answer the special exceptions by the time set by the court. The pleadings are rather convoluted; it is unclear whether the rulings made as a result of the special exceptions dismissed all of Robert Looney's claims. It is clear that Paula Looney's claims have not yet been dismissed. The trial court has signed no order purporting to dispose of the cause. The clerk's record shows no order severing Robert and Paula Looney's claims. Accordingly, there does not appear to be a final judgment disposing of all claims and all parties from which an appeal can be properly prosecuted. See Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d at 895; Cowan v. Moreno, 903 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex. App.--Austin 1995, no writ) (no final judgment; appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction).

The parties were notified of this problem by letter dated February 17, 1998 and given the opportunity to tender any supplemental record containing documents which would show that the judgment was final or tender any response showing how the judgment might be appealable. We received no response. (2)

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 43(a).

 

Before Chief Justice Yeakel, Justices Aboussie and Jones

 

Appeal Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

 

Filed: June 4, 1998

 

Do Not Publish

1. Other appellees are: Frank Douthitt, Steven Lee, Steven Moyick, Sherry Germany, Richard Pena, the Honorable Virgil Mulanax, Roy Q. Minton, the Supreme Court of Texas, Chief Justice Tom Phillips, Justice Raul Gonzales, Justice Nathan Hecht, Justice John Cornyn, Justice Craig Enoch, Justice Rose Spector, Justice Priscilla Owen, Justice James Baker and Justice Greg Abbott. All individual appellees were sued in their individual and official capacities.

2. We note that the clerk's record was checked out and signed for by Paula Looney on March 10, 1998. A review of the record after its return shows that it