Matthew L. Webb v. H.E.B. Staff Appeal from 284th District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-19-00145-CV __________________ MATTHEW L. WEBB, Appellant V. H.E.B. STAFF, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 284th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 19-04-04688-CV __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Matthew L. Webb filed a notice of appeal from a ruling the trial court made on a discovery dispute between Webb and H.E.B. Staff. The trial court’s order ruling on the dispute neither struck Webb’s pleadings nor dismissed the case. Moreover, the merits of the dispute have not been resolved. Therefore, the trial court’s order ruling on the discovery dispute was not appealable, since the order did not constitute a final judgment. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 1 (Tex. 2001). We also lack jurisdiction over appeals from interlocutory orders unless a statute specifically authorizes the appeal. See, e.g., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014 (West Supp. 2018). After Webb filed his notice of appeal, we questioned our jurisdiction over the appeal. We also invited the parties to explain why the court had jurisdiction to consider Webb’s appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. Webb responded, conceding the court has no jurisdiction to consider his appeal. He also requested that this Court issue a mandate immediately. Since the parties have not identified a statute authorizing Webb’s appeal, we dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. We also direct the clerk to immediately issue the mandate. APPEAL DISMISSED. _________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on June 26, 2019 Opinion Delivered June 27, 2019 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 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.