In the Interest of J.A.G. and J.A.G, Minors v. << (2015)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Jose Eleuterio Garza, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order granting a motion to reconsider and granting a motion for new trial.   On August 6, 2015, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that the order that he was attempting to appeal did not appear to be an appealable order, and requested correction of this defect, if it could be done.   The Clerk further advised appellant that the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of the Court's notice.   See Tex.R.App. P. 42. 3(a),(c).  Appellant did not respond to this Court's notice.

When a motion for new trial is timely filed and the motion is granted during the trial court's plenary power, the order granting a new trial is generally not reviewable on appeal, either by direct appeal from the order or from a final judgment rendered after further proceedings in the trial court.   Cummins v. Paisan Constr.   Co., 682 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex.1984);  Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 563 (Tex.2005);  see also In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204, 209 (Tex.2009) (orig.proceeding).  Specifically, an order granting a new trial deprives an appellate court of jurisdiction over an appeal.  Yan v. Jiang, 241 S.W.3d 930 (Tex.App.–Dallas 2008, no pet.) (per curiam);  see also Shrewsbury v. Por, No. 08–13–00364–CV, 2015 WL 3898801, at *1 (Tex.App.–El Paso June 24, 2015, no. pet.) (mem.op.);  In re M.H.E., No. 05–15–00226–CV, 2015 WL 3823609, at *1 (Tex.App.–Dallas June 19, 2015, no. pet.) (mem.op.).

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.   See Tex. R. App. P.P. 42.3(a).

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam