Tobey Waggoner v. Lead Generation, LLC--Appeal from 131st Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-12-00785-CV Tobey WAGGONER, Appellant v. LEAD GENERATION AND MARKETING, LLC, Appellee From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012-CI-09405 Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebecca Simmons, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 21, 2012 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION On June 8, 2012, appellee Lead Generation and Marketing, LLC sued appellant Tobey Waggoner and other defendants for various civil causes of action. On November 6, 2012, Appellant s counsel s assistant electronically filed a special appearance approximately nine minutes after the trial court called for announcements in the default judgment hearing. Appellant did not present a copy of the special appearance to opposing counsel or the court. The trial court was unable to confirm that the special appearance had been filed, and it granted a default 04-12-00785-CV judgment in favor of appellee. The default judgment did not dispose of all parties and claims in the underlying suit. On November 20, 2012, Appellant filed a notice of appeal from an Interlocutory Order . . . that, in effect, denied [his] Special Appearance. In response to Appellant s motions, on November 30, 2012, we stayed all discovery with respect to Appellant, and on December 7, 2012, we stayed all further proceedings in the underlying suit pending resolution of this appeal numbered 04-12-00785-CV. On December 7, 2012, Appellee filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appellee asserts that this court lacks jurisdiction in this appeal because the trial court did not consider or deny Appellant s special appearance. A party may appeal a district court s interlocutory order that denies a special appearance. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. ยง 51.014(a) (West Supp. 2012); see BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 793 (Tex. 2002). However, the record does not show that the trial court considered or denied the special appearance. Further, the November 6, 2012 default judgment does not dispose of all pending parties and claims. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See BMC Software Belg., 83 S.W.3d at 793; Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. Appellee s motion is granted. We withdraw our November 30, 2012 and December 7, 2012 orders in this appeal, and we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See BMC Software Belg., 83 S.W.3d at 793; Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. 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.
