Lakeith Amir-Sharif v. Chester Cadieux, III
05-14-01055-CV
| Tex. App. | Mar 25, 2015Background
- Appellant Lakeith Amir‑Sharif filed DC‑14‑03842; the trial court consolidated it with an earlier case DC‑09‑13818 and administratively closed DC‑14‑03842 on July 8, 2014.
- The consolidated (older) case remained active on the trial court docket.
- Amir‑Sharif filed a notice of appeal from the administrative‑closure order on August 7, 2014.
- The Court of Appeals questioned whether the administrative‑closure order was an appealable final judgment and invited briefing on jurisdiction.
- Amir‑Sharif argued consolidation/transfer and administrative closure were improper because he received no notice or hearing and his motion for no‑answer default judgment had not been acted on.
- The court concluded consolidation and administrative closure are interlocutory; consolidation may be done ex parte and pending motions remain in the consolidated suit, so it dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of administrative‑closure order | The closure is reviewable; appellant appealed it. | The closure is interlocutory, not a final judgment. | Dismissed — administrative closure is not an appealable final judgment. |
| Due process / lack of notice for transfer and consolidation | Transfer, consolidation and closure without notice violated due process and other constitutional rights. | Trial court may transfer/consolidate ex parte; no notice required. | Held for defendants — consolidation/transfer may be ordered ex parte. |
| Effect on pending motion for no‑answer default judgment | Closure prevented resolution of appellant’s motion for default judgment. | After consolidation, motions merge into the consolidated case and remain pending there. | Held for defendants — motions remain pending in consolidated suit; no deprivation. |
| Jurisdiction of Court of Appeals over this interlocutory order | Appellant contends interlocutory matters can be reviewed here. | Court generally has jurisdiction only over final judgments; interlocutory appeals require statutory authorization. | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; no statutory basis for interlocutory appeal of consolidation/administrative closure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehmann v. Har‑Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (final‑judgment rule governs appellate jurisdiction)
- Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. 1992) (interlocutory orders appealable only if statute permits)
- Starnes v. Holloway, 779 S.W.2d 86 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989) (trial court may transfer/consolidate ex parte)
- Perry v. Del Rio, 53 S.W.3d 818 (Tex. App.—Austin) (proper consolidation merges actions into one suit)
- Rust v. Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co., 180 S.W. 95 (Tex. 1915) (consolidation merges separable causes into a single suit)
- Am. Motorists Ins. Co. v. Box, 531 S.W.2d 401 (Tex. Civ. App.—Tyler 1975) (after consolidation, issues of law and fact are merged)
- Carter v. Sun City Towing & Recovery, L.P., 225 S.W.3d 161 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005) (no statutory authorization for interlocutory appeal of consolidation)