Erika Santiagos and Osbaldo A. Saenz Jr. v. Selvin Santiagos-Salguero

NUMBER 13-25-00617-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

ERIKA SANTIAGOS
AND OSBALDO A. SAENZ JR., Appellants,

v.

SELVIN SANTIAGOS-SALGUERO, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE 332ND DISTRICT COURT
OF HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Cron, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

This matter is before the Court on appellants’ “amended motion extending time to

file appellants cure of defect” which also contains a motion for access to the record. Upon

review of appellants’ notice of appeal and all other documents before us, we are of the
opinion that this court lacks jurisdiction and the case should be dismissed for want of

jurisdiction.

On November 14, 2025, appellants attempted to appeal the trial court’s “Order of

Transfer” entered on October 29, 2025 in trial court cause number C-4359-25-F. On

November 24, 2025, the Clerk of the Court notified appellants that it appears the order

they were attempting to appeal was unappealable. On December 17, 2025, the Clerk of

the Court again notified appellants that it appears that the order they were attempting to

appeal was not an appealable order. Appellants were further notified that if the defect was

not cured within ten days from the date of the notice, the appeal would be dismissed. On

January 14, 2026, appellants requested fifteen to thirty additional days to cure the defect

and requested access to the appellate record. However, appellants failed to provide

adequate explanation for the delay or why the record is necessary to establish jurisdiction.

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

transferring a case between district courts is not a final appealable order. “[A]n order or

judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending

claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all

claims and parties.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001). 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 195.

We are of the opinion that an order transferring a case between district courts is

unappealable, and appellant has failed to establish our jurisdiction over the matter. The

2
Court, having considered the notice of appeal, documents on file, and appellants’ failure

to establish jurisdiction or otherwise correct the defect in their notice of appeal, we deny

both motions and dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a),

(c).

CLARISSA SILVA
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
29th day of January, 2026.

3