Jose Chavez v. Dalton Pugh and Nancy Pugh Appeal from County Court at Law No. 4 of Williamson County (memorandum opinion by chief justice rose)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-15-00395-CV Jose Chavez, Appellant v. Dalton Pugh and Nancy Pugh, Appellees FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 15-0344-CC4, HONORABLE JOHN MCMASTER, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Jose Chavez, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal attempting to challenge an “Interlocutory Default Judgment” in the underlying cause.1 However, that interlocutory judgment does not dispose of all parties and claims in the underlying cause and no signed severance order appears in the record. Without a final judgment or an otherwise appealable order, we may not exercise appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see also Cuarto Petro Corp. v. McGill Real Estate, LLC, No. 04-06-00788-CV, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 11023, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 27, 2006, 1 We note that the no-answer default judgment was taken against Avew Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Austin Patio & Outdoor Living and that the judgment identifies Chavez as Avew’s President and CEO, but Chavez cannot represent the corporation pro se. See Kunstoplast of Am., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA, 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996) (“Generally a corporation may be represented only by a licensed attorney.”). no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction because trial court’s order did not dispose of all causes of action and record did not contain order of severance). On September 15, 2015, this Court requested that Chavez file a written response demonstrating this Court’s jurisdiction over his appeal. No response was filed. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). __________________________________________ Jeff Rose, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: October 2, 2015 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.
