                             NUMBER 13-18-00435-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

VALLEY’S MARKET PLACE, LLC,                                                   Appellant,

                                            v.

LUPITA DURAN,                                       Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

          On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4
                   of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
   Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa
             Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

       Appellant Valley’s Market Place, LLC attempted to perfect an appeal from orders

entered by the County Court at Law No. 4 of Hidalgo County, Texas on July 18, 2018 and

August 6, 2018. The orders at issue denied appellant’s motion to dismiss the underlying

case and denied appellant’s motion for reconsideration of that ruling.          Appellant’s

amended notice of appeal asserts that these orders are final rulings, or, alternatively, are
appealable interlocutory orders. Appellant further asserts, in the alternative, that it will

file an original proceeding if these rulings cannot be attacked by appeal.

       Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. See City of Watauga

v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 586, 588 (Tex. 2014); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191,

195 (Tex. 2001). Appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider appeals of interlocutory

orders only if a statute explicitly provides for such an appeal. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v.

Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. 2007); see City of Watauga, 434 S.W.3d at 588;

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 Court, having considered the amended notice of appeal and the clerk’s record,

is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The orders

at issue in this case are neither final judgments nor interlocutory appeals authorized by

statute. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3(a),(c). All pending motions or requests for relief, if any, are likewise dismissed

for want of jurisdiction.

                                                               NORA L. LONGORIA
                                                               Justice

Delivered and filed the
11th day of October, 2018.




                                             2
