Tana Oil and Gas Corporation v. Richard G. Cernosek, CER-MOR-LEB, a General Partnership and Garth C. Bates--Appeal from 155th District Court of Fayette County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-02-00096-CV Tana Oil and Gas Corporation, Appellant v. Richard G. Cernosek, CER-MOR-LEB, a General Partnership and Garth C. Bates, Appellees FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF FAYETTE COUNTY, 155TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 96V-138, HONORABLE DANIEL R. BECK, JUDGE PRESIDING On January 20, 2002, the district court granted a motion submitted by Richard G. Cernosek, CER-MOR-LEB, a general partnership, and Garth C. Bates, appellees, requesting a modification of the original class certification order signed in this cause which additionally denied a motion submitted by appellant Tana Oil and Gas Corporation to decertify the class. Tana filed this appeal and a motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the resolution of this appeal. Appellees subsequently filed a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. Appellees contend that this appeal is an attempted second appeal from the modification of a class certification order that was previously affirmed by this Court. See Tana Oil and Gas Corp. v. Bates, 978 S.W.2d 735 (Tex. App. Austin 1998, no pet.). Citing Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. 2000), appellees contend that the modification order makes no fundamental change in the class certification order, and therefore, this is an improper interlocutory appeal. See id. at 356. We agree and therefore dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. As we have not yet ruled on appellant s motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the resolution of this appeal and having dismissed this appeal for want of jurisdiction, we also dismiss the motion to stay. Justice Mack Kidd Before Justices Kidd, Patterson and Puryear Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: April 11, 2002 Do Not Publish 2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.
