NASSER CHEHAB v. MAC HAIK CHEVROLET LTD

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).

NASSER CHEHAB, Appellant v. MAC HAIK CHEVROLET, LTD., Appellee

NO. 14-16-01009-CV

Decided: January 31, 2017

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Brown and Jewell.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal by appellant Nasser Chehab from an order denying his second motion to compel discovery from appellee Mac Haik Chevrolet, Ltd.. Because we lack appellate jurisdiction over this interlocutory order, we dismiss the appeal.

On December 16, 2016, the trial court signed an order denying Chehab's motion to compel and sustaining Mac Haik's objections to Chehab's second request for production and interrogatories. The trial court did not assess sanctions against either party. On December 19, 2016, Chehab filed a notice of appeal complaining of the trial court's denial of the motion to compel.

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When orders do not dispose of all pending parties and claims, the orders remain interlocutory and unappealable until final judgment is rendered unless a statutory exception applies. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

The denial of a party's motion to compel discovery is an interlocutory order not subject to appeal. See generally Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.3d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (holding that interlocutory discovery order was subject to mandamus relief because there was no adequate remedy by appeal).

On January 11, 2017, notification was transmitted to the parties of this court's intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless on or before January 24, 2017, Chehab filed a response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). On January 23, 2017, Chehab filed a response in which he argues the merits of his motion to compel production. Chehab does not cite to any statute that would permit him to appeal the denial of a motion to compel discovery, nor has this court found any such authority. Chehab's response fails to demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction over the appeal.

The appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Copied to clipboard