Precision-Hayes International, Inc. v. JDH Pacific, Inc. Appeal from 400th District Court of Fort Bend County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 29, 2021. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-21-00115-CV PRECISION-HAYES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellant V. JDH PACIFIC, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 400th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 19-DCV-261720 MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an attempted appeal from an order signed February 8, 2021. The trial court’s February 8, 2021 order modified a previous order requiring the deposit of appellant’s funds in the court’s registry and ordered the court clerk to release fifty percent of appellant’s funds. Because the trial court’s order requires the deposit of property into the trial court’s registry, it is not final and appealable. See Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend LLP v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Co., L.P., 540 S.W.3d 577, 587–88 (Tex. 2018). 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). An order requiring the deposit of funds into the court’s registry is an unappealable interlocutory order. See Zhao v. XO Energy, LLC, 493 S.W.3d 725, 735 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (collecting cases involving challenges to orders to deposit money into a court registry that were dismissed for want of jurisdiction). On March 26, 2021, notification was transmitted to the parties of this court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant’s response fails to demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Hassan. 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.
