Maria F. Martinez v. Oralia Garza

NUMBER 13-25-00425-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

MARIA F. MARTINEZ, Appellant,

v.

ORALIA GARZA, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 7
OF HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Silva, Peña, and West
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

This cause is before the Court on its own motion. Appellant Maria F. Martinez filed

a notice of appeal attempting to appeal an order granting appellee Oralia Garza’s motion

to reinstate and motion for new trial in trial court cause number CL-24-2169-G. On August

26, 2025, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that it appears the order she is

attempting to appeal is unappealable. Appellant was further notified that if the defect was
not cured within ten days, the appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. On

September 3, 2025, appellant filed an amended notice of appeal; however, the notice

identified the same order and did not cure the defect.

We have jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments and from certain

interlocutory orders made appealable by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39

S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 51.014. When an order does

not dispose of all pending parties and claims, the order is interlocutory, and unless a

statutory exception applies, the order is unappealable until the trial court signs a final

judgment. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. An order granting a motion to reinstate under

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a(3) is not a final judgment and there is no statute

permitting an interlocutory appeal thereof. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 165a(3); TEX. GOV’T CODE

ANN. § 51.014(a); see also Blair v. Hutchison, No. 02-21-00132-CV, 2021 WL 2586615,

at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 24, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.). An order granting a

motion for new trial rendered within the period of the trial court’s plenary power is

generally not reviewable on appeal except under very limited circumstances not

applicable here. Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 563 (Tex. 2005);

see also Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 918 (Tex. 1985) (noting

the two instances when a Texas appellate court has overturned the trial court’s grant of

a new trial: when the trial court’s order was wholly void, and where the trial court specified

in the written order that the sole ground for granting the motion was that the jury’s answers

to special issues were irreconcilably conflicting). We conclude that the trial court’s order

2
granting new trial was rendered within the period of the trial court’s plenary power. See

Wilkins, 160 S.W.3d at 563.

Upon review of the documents before us, we are of the opinion that the order

appellant attempted to appeal is unappealable, and appellant has failed to correct the

defect. Absent an appealable interlocutory order or final judgment, this Court has no

jurisdiction over this appeal. See Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 W.S.3d 316, 319 n.1 (Tex.

2007); Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205. Having considered the documents on file and

appellant’s failure to correct the jurisdictional defect, we dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

CLARISSA SILVA
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
20th day of November, 2025.

3