Natalya Read v. Stephen Sibo Appeal from 127th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 14, 2017 In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00731-CV NATALYA READ, Appellant V. STEPHEN SIBO, Appellee On Appeal from the 127th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016-01772 MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an attempted accelerated appeal from an order signed June 8, 2017, granting partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff/appellee Stephen Sibo. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When orders do not dispose of all pending parties and claims, the orders remain interlocutory and unappealable until final judgment is rendered unless a statutory exception applies. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). On October 10, 2017, notification was transmitted to the parties of this court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed, by October 23, 2017, a response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant filed a brief on October 18, 2017, that states in relevant part: STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY The judgment entered pursuant to District Court order granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is an appealable interlocutory judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 51.014. Section 51.014(a) authorizes an interlocutory appeal from thirteen types of orders. Neither appellant’s brief nor the record in this case indicates that the order at issue here corresponds to one of the appealable interlocutory orders identified in section 51.014(a). The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Brown. 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.