Harry E. Bundy, Jr. v. Adesa Houston d/b/a Adesa, Inc. Appeal from 146th District Court of Bell County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-17-00090-CV Harry E. Bundy, Jr., Appellant v. Adesa Houston d/b/a Adesa, Inc., Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 146TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 285,918-0, HONORABLE JACK WELDON JONES, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Harry E. Bundy, Jr., acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal challenging only the district court’s order granting a motion to transfer venue. However, as a general rule, a trial court’s order on venue is interlocutory, and “[n]o interlocutory appeal shall lie from the trial court’s venue determination.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.064(a); see also Boudreau v. Jaikaran, No. 05-05-00544-CV, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 6245, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 8, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that court lacked jurisdiction over appeal from interlocutory order transferring venue).1 Without a final judgment or otherwise appealable order, we may not exercise 1 In the underlying suit Bundy also purported to represent a partnership pro se, which he refers to as a “non-appearing plaintiff.” However, a partnership must be represented by counsel. Simmons, Jannace & Stagg, L.L.P. v. Buzbee Law Firm, 324 S.W.3d 833, 833 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.). Because the partnership is not represented by counsel and is not appearing before the trial court, Bundy is the only plaintiff, and the statute permitting interlocutory appeals from certain venue rulings involving multiple plaintiffs does not apply here. Cf. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.003. appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). On February 24, 2017, this Court requested that Bundy file a written response demonstrating this Court’s jurisdiction over his appeal. Bundy’s response did not do so.2 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 Field and Bourland Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: March 22, 2017 2 Bundy’s response requested an extension of time to file his brief and to obtain a copy of the reporter’s record. 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.
