James Myart v. George Morales, Anthony Pineda, Frederick Armour, Tammy Wittal, Courtney Young, AAA Auto Insurance, Chris Heinemeyer, Krenek and Heinemeyer, Priscilla Jones, and Empower Managing Insurance Agency, Inc. Appeal from 224th 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. 04-17-00084-CV James MYART, Appellant v. George MORALES, Anthony Pineda, Frederick Armour, Tammy Wittal, Courtney Young, AAA Auto Insurance, Chris Heinemeyer, Krenek and Heinemeyer, Priscilla Jones, and Empower Managing Insurance Agency, Inc., Appellees From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2016-CI-15735 Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: May 31, 2017 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION On February 15, 2017, the trial court denied Appellant James Myart’s motion for sanctions related to mediation and ordered the parties to mediate. On February 17, 2017, Appellant filed a notice of appeal complaining of the trial court’s February 15, 2017 order. Generally, “an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record, except as necessary to carry out the decree.” Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. An appeal may also be taken from certain 04-17-00084-CV interlocutory orders as authorized by statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2016); Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88, 92 (Tex. 2012). Because the appellate record did not appear to contain an appealable interlocutory order or final judgment, on April 20, 2017, we ordered Appellant to show cause by May 1, 2017, why this appeal should not be dismissed. To date, Appellant has not filed a response. The appellate record does not contain an appealable interlocutory order or final judgment; we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); 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.