THERESA BARNETT v. DAVID CROCKETT AND DAVID CROCKETT CO (2011)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is appellees' July 29, 2011 motion to dismiss appeal.   Appellees assert the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because there is no final judgment in the trial court.   Appellant has filed a response, which does not claim that a final judgment exists, but argues that this Court should review the trial court's discovery orders because they violate her rights to privacy and right not to be harassed.

Generally, we have jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments, that is, judgments that dispose of all pending parties and claims in the record.   See Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.2001);  Beckham Grp., P.C. v. Snyder, 315 S.W.3d 244, 245 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.).   Orders that do not dispose of all pending parties and claims are interlocutory and, subject to a few mostly statutory exceptions, unappealable until a final judgment is entered.   See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195;  In re Energy Transfer Fuel, L.P., 298 S.W.3d 343, 347 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2009, no pet.).

The notice of appeal and amended notice of appeal in this case reflect appellant is challenging orders on motions to compel dated April 20, 25, and 29, 2011.   Appellant does not contend, nor do we find, that any of the complained-of orders falls within one of the exceptions to the general rule that interlocutory orders are appealable only upon entry of a final judgment.   Without a final judgment, then, these orders are not subject to our review.   See Energy Transfer, 298 S.W.3d at 347.

Because there is no final judgment in this case and none of the complained-of orders is subject to interlocutory appeal, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal.   See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195;  Beckham Grp., 315 S.W.3d at 245.   Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.   See Tex.R.App. P. 42.3(a).

110515F.P05

PER CURIAM