Thomas & Son's Inc. v. Seabrook Land Co.
(Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 1, 2009)(Bland)
(finality, interlocutory appeal from sanctions order not authorized and dismissed for want of
DISMISS APPEAL: Opinion by Justice Bland
Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Bland and Massengale
01-09-00420-CV Thomas & Son's Inc., United Seafood, Inc., and Gulf Coast Harvest, Inc.
v. Seabrook Land Company
Appeal from 125th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Kyle Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION [links are not part of the court's opinion]
After the trial court imposed discovery sanctions on appellants Thomas & Sons, Inc., United
Seafood, Inc., and Gulf Coast Harvest, Inc., they petitioned this Court for mandamus relief
from the December 19, 2008 sanctions order. On April 23, 2009, nearly three months after
we denied their petition for mandamus relief and after appellee Seabrook Land Company
(“Seabrook”) nonsuited its claims against them, appellants filed a notice of appeal from the
same sanctions order.
Seabrook has moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, pointing out that it is still
prosecuting its claims against other defendants in the trial court action, and the trial court
has not severed the nonsuited claims against appellants from the rest of the action.
Appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments and certain interlocutory orders
identified by statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). “Only
one final judgment shall be rendered in any cause except where it is otherwise specially
provided by law.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 301. Because the sanctions order does not dispose of all
parties and claims in the case, it is not a final judgment. See Hinde v. Hinde, 701 S.W.2d
637, 639 (Tex. 1986).
Nor is it an order identified by statute that is subject to interlocutory appeal. See Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon 2008); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.2(b)(8); In re
Supportkids, Inc., 124 S.W.3d 804, 808–09 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, orig.
proceeding) (observing that discovery sanctions order is subject to review on appeal from
final judgment). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the sanctions order.
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). All other
pending motions are dismissed as moot.
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Massengale.