Cudd Pumping Services, Inc. v. Patrick Petroleum, LLC and Diamondback Operating, L.P.--Appeal from 198th Judicial District Court of Edwards County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-11-00785-CV CUDD PUMPING SERVICES, INC., Appellant v. PATRICK PETROLEUM, and Diamondback Operating, L.P., Appellees From the 198th Judicial District Court, Edwards County, Texas Trial Court No. 3714 The Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebecca Simmons, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: January 4, 2012 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION In this suit on a sworn account, appellant Cudd Pumping Services, Inc. seeks to appeal the trial court s September 14, 2011 order granting defendants motion to compel discovery. This court s appellate jurisdiction is generally limited to reviewing a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). We may also review interlocutory orders authorized by statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West 2011); Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001). Because the trial court s 04-11-00785-CV September 14, 2011 order granting appellees motion to compel discovery did not appear to be an appealable interlocutory order, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing not later than December 19, 2011, why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West 2011); TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); Bally, 53 S.W.3d at 352; Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195; Mock v. Mock, 01-10-00436-CV, 2011 WL 148229, at *1 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 13, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) ( An order granting a motion to compel discovery is a non-appealable, interlocutory order. ). We warned appellant that if appellant did not show cause in writing within the time provided, this appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). To date, appellant has not filed any response to our show cause order. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See id.; Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195; see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (authorizing dismissal for failure to comply with a court order). Costs of this appeal are taxed against appellant. PER CURIAM -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.
