Ramon Martinez v. Edgar Guajardo and Daniela C. Guajardo Appeal from 206th District Court of Hidalgo County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-19-00476-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ RAMON MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. EDGAR GUAJARDO AND DANIELA C. GUAJARDO, Appellees. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina Appellant, Ramon Martinez, attempted to perfect an appeal from orders signed on September 3, 2019, granting appellees’ traditional and no-evidence motion for summary judgment. This cause is before the Court on appellees’ opposed motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the orders are interlocutory and did not dispose of all claims, specifically claims against defendant Irma Chapa. After the trial court entered the orders the subject of this appeal, the trial court dismissed the Chapa claims for want of jurisdiction but subsequently granted a motion to reinstate the Chapa claims. Appellant has responded that the information contained in appellees’ motion to dismiss is correct and at this time the orders entered by trial court are interlocutory. However, counsel states a default judgment hearing scheduled in the trial court may finalize the case so the appeal may proceed. Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appears that the orders from which this appeal was taken were not final, appealable orders. In terms of appellate jurisdiction, appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review final judgments and certain interlocutory orders identified by statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). The orders being appealed are neither final judgments nor interlocutory appeals authorized by statute. The Court, having considered the clerk’s record, supplemental clerk’s record, the motion to dismiss and response, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See id. Accordingly, we GRANT the motion to dismiss filed by appellees. The appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. JAIME TIJERINA, Justice Delivered and filed the 19th day of December, 2019. 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.
