Francisco Javier Espinoza and Beatriz A. Espinoza, Appellants, v. DHJR Limited Partnership, Appellee.
Appellants, Francisco Javier Espinoza and Beatriz A. Espinoza, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 4 of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number CL–15–2425–D. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
The notice of appeal states appellants are appealing an order signed on October 1, 2015. The trial court held a hearing on October 1, 2015, to hear the appellee's motion to dismiss. The trial court signed an order on October 15, 2015, remanding the case for lack of jurisdiction to the justice of the peace court. On December 22, 2015, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants that it appeared that the appeal was not timely perfected. Appellants were advised that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of the Court's directive. Appellants have not responded to this Court's notice.
In terms of appellate jurisdiction, appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review final judgments and certain interlocutory orders identified by statute. Lehmann v. HarCon Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.2001). The order of October 15, 2015 remands the case to the justice of the peace court. Because the appellants are not appealing a final judgment, we conclude this Court has no jurisdiction to consider this appeal.
Moreover, appellants' notice of appeal was untimely. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 provides that an appeal is perfected when notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed, unless a motion for new trial is timely filed. Tex.R.App. P. 26.1(a)(1). Where a timely motion for new trial or motion to reinstate has been filed, notice of appeal shall be filed within ninety days after the judgment is signed. Tex.R.App. P. 26.1(a). Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellants' notice of appeal was due on November 2, 2015, but was not filed until December 16, 2015.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and appellants' failure to correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See Tex.R.App. P. 42.3(a), (c).
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam