Abelardo Gonzalez v. The Honorable Jose A. Lopez Appeal from County Court at Law No 2 of Webb County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-21-00065-CV Abelardo GONZALEZ, Appellant v. The Honorable Jose A. LOPEZ, Appellee From the County Court at Law No. 2, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017FLI001815C3 Honorable Missy Medary, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Delivered and Filed: July 7, 2021 DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION In a previous matter arising out of the underlying proceeding, the trial court awarded appellee $300 in attorney’s fees as sanctions against appellant. On December 23, 2020, this court reversed that sanctions order and remanded the matter to the trial court for a new hearing. The clerk’s record in this appeal shows that following the hearing on remand, the trial court signed a May 4, 2021 order denying “the requested $300.00 in attorney’s fees against” appellant. The May 4, 2021 order is the order at issue in this appeal. Appellant—but not appellee—filed a notice of appeal from that order. 04-21-00065-CV The Texas Supreme Court has held that “an appealing party may not complain of errors that do not injuriously affect it or that merely affect the rights of others.” Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829, 843 (Tex. 2000). Based on this record, it appears appellant is attempting to appeal an order that “merely affects the rights of” appellee alone. As a result, it appears that appellant lacks standing to bring this appeal. See id.; see also In re P.R., 615 S.W.3d 474, 481–82 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2020, no pet.) (holding father lacked standing to appeal order denying petition to terminate his parental rights). For that reason, on May 12, 2021, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing by May 25, 2021 why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In that order, we cautioned appellant that if he failed to satisfactorily respond within the time provided, we would dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Appellant did not file a response to our May 12, 2021 order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See id. 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.
