KST Capital, LLC, Tobin Parker, Tobin M. Parker Jr., and W. Schreiner Parker v. American Bank of Commerce Appeal from 48th District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-20-00090-CV ___________________________ KST CAPITAL, LLC, TOBIN PARKER, TOBIN M. PARKER JR., AND W. SCHREINER PARKER, Appellants V. AMERICAN BANK OF COMMERCE, Appellee On Appeal from the 48th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 048-299865-18 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Womack and Wallach, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack MEMORANDUM OPINION KST Capital, LLC, Tobin M. Parker, Tobin M. Parker Jr., and W. Schreiner Parker filed a notice of appeal stating they intended to appeal three orders: (1) an order denying their motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (2) an order denying their motion to quash and for protective order, and (3) an order resetting the cause for final trial. These orders are interlocutory. We lack jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless a statute specifically authorizes an exception to the general rule that a party may appeal only from final judgments. See Qwest Commc’ns Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 336 (Tex. 2000) (per curiam). Because the interlocutory orders at issue here did not appear to be appealable, we notified appellants that we were concerned that we may not have jurisdiction to review them. We asked appellants to file by March 23, 2020, a response showing grounds to continue this appeal and stated that if they did not, we could dismiss it. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3, 44.3. Appellants did not file a response. We conclude that none of the three interlocutory orders here are appealable. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (setting forth generally which interlocutory orders are appealable); see also In re I.C.D.N., No. 05-17-01426-CV, 2018 WL 580274, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 29, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (noting that a party may appeal from an interlocutory order denying a governmental unit’s plea to the jurisdiction); Anderson v. Bessman, No. 14-10-00118-CV, 2010 WL 1380143, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 8, 2010, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) 2 (dismissing for want of jurisdiction appellants’ appeal of interlocutory order denying motion to quash and for protective order). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). /s/ Dana Womack Dana Womack Justice Delivered: April 16, 2020 3
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.
