CourtListener 9434216•Standard Hodges v. Vien Ladd A/K/A Ladd Vien, Stephen T. Vanrooy and Ranchero Land Company, LP
Standard Hodges v. Vien Ladd A/K/A Ladd Vien, Stephen T. Vanrooy and Ranchero Land Company, LP
CourtListener 9434216Txctapp10Oct 19, 2023
Full text
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-23-00224-CV
STANDARD HODGES,
Appellant
v.
VIEN LADD A/K/A LADD VIEN,
STEPHEN T. VANROOY AND
RANCHERO LAND COMPANY, LP,
Appellees
From the 40th District Court
Ellis County, Texas
Trial Court No. 110566
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Standard Hodges, who is not indigent and has retained counsel,
appeals from a June 30, 2023 order of dismissal. The order is entitled "Order Granting
Ladd Vien's Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss" and specifically refers to "Defendant Ladd
Vien's Rule 91A Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Petition." See TEX. R. CIV.
P. 91a. The order does not purport to dispose of Hodges's claims against defendants
Stephen Van Rooy and Ranchero Land Company, LP. Our jurisdiction is limited to
appeals from final judgments, except as explicitly allowed by statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC.
& REM. CODE ANN. § 51.012; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).
Because no statute permits interlocutory appeals from Rule 91a dismissals, the record
must demonstrate that the order appealed from is final and appealable. See TEX. CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014.
On August 3, 2023, we notified Hodges that there does not appear to be a final
order from which he can appeal to this Court, and the appeal is subject to dismissal. We
further notified him that the Court may dismiss this appeal unless, within twenty-one
days from the date of the letter, a response is filed showing grounds for continuing the
appeal. On August 24, 2023, Hodges responded by filing a request to retain the appeal
on the docket in which he explained that he had filed a motion to sever in the trial court
and was awaiting a hearing on the motion. Hodges has filed nothing further in this
Court. Because the order Hodges attempts to appeal does not dispose of all parties and
claims, it is not final, and we have no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. See Lehmann, 39
S.W.3d at 195.
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Hodges v. Ladd Page 2
STEVE SMITH
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
Dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed October 17, 2023
[CV06]
Hodges v. Ladd Page 3
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.