Cole Distribution, Inc., Cole Chemical & Distributing, Ind., Princess Properties Limited Partnership, Cole International, Inc., and Donna F. Cole v. Vexapak L.L.C., Antonio Gonzalez Cortex aka Antonio Gonzalez Jr. aka Antonio D. Gonzalez aka Antonio D. Gonzalez Cortes and Antonio Gonzalez Cardenas Appeal from 125th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued November 24, 2015 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-15-00573-CV ——————————— COLE DISTRIBUTION, INC., COLE CHEMICAL & DISTRIBUTING, INC., PRINCESS PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, COLE INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND DONNA F. COLE, Appellants V. VEXAPAK L.L.C., ANTONIO GONZALEZ CORTEX AKA ANTONIO GONZALEZ JR. AKA ANTONIO D. GONZALEZ AKA ANTONIO D. GONZALEZ CORTES AND ANTONIO GONZALEZ CARDENAS, Appellees On Appeal from the 125th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2008-27646 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellants filed notices of appeal attempting to appeal a final judgment rendered on April 2, 2015. On July 10, 2015, while the appellate case was pending, the trial court entered an order vacating its final judgment and ordering that a new judgment would be entered upon consideration of the parties’ motions to modify the judgment. In August and September 2015, this Court respectively granted Appellants’ motions to abate and to continue abatement of the appeal pending the trial court’s entering a final judgment. A new final judgment has not been entered and, on November 3, 2015, this Court denied Appellants’ most recent request to continue abatement. This Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and those interlocutory orders specifically authorized by statute. See Bison Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 422 S.W.3d 582, 585 (Tex. 2012); CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447–48 (Tex. 2011); Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex.2001); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West 2015) (authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders). Because the trial court withdrew its final judgment and has not entered a subsequent final judgment, the Court directed the parties that it might dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction unless the parties filed a response demonstrating the Court’s jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). The parties failed to file a response. 2 Accordingly, because the trial court withdrew its final judgment and nothing in the record indicates that the trial court has since entered a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Gunn v. Tracy, No. 05-11-00161-CV, 2011 WL 1663088, at *1 (Tex. App.— Dallas May 4, 2011, no pet.) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction after trial court withdrew final judgment); Sanchez v. Olivas, No. 08-06-00138-CV, 2006 WL 2480803, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso Aug. 29, 2006, no pet.) (same). We dismiss all pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Bland. 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.
