Julius Tabe, M.D. v. Texas Inpatient Consultants, LLLP Appeal from 129th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued October 6, 2016 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-16-00493-CV ——————————— JULIUS TABE, M.D., Appellant V. TEXAS INPATIENT CONSULTANTS, LLLP, Appellee On Appeal from the 129th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2014-73381 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Julius Tabe, filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal an interlocutory order denying his motion for reconsideration of an order granting partial summary judgment. Appellant’s notice of appeal stated that the denial of his motion for reconsideration effectively denied his plea to the jurisdiction and motion to compel discovery. Appellee, Texas Inpatient Consultants, subsequently filed a motion requesting that we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and grant sanctions pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 45 for the filing of a frivolous appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 45. Appellee asserts that we lack jurisdiction because (1) denial of a motion for reconsideration of partial summary judgment is not an appealable interlocutory order, (2) there is no order denying appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction and, even if there was, the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction by a non-governmental party is not an appealable interlocutory order, and (3) there is no order denying appellant’s motion to compel discovery and, even if there was, it would not be an appealable interlocutory order. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 51.014(a). Twelve days after the filing of appellee’s motion, appellant filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of his appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). In response, Texas Inpatients reiterates its request for sanctions. We grant appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We deny the motion for sanctions. Any other pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Lloyd. 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.
