Opinion Library

Omoregie v. TPS Will Clayton, LLC

COA01

In an interlocutory appeal from a Harris County district court order compelling arbitration and staying the case, the First Court of Appeals considered whether it had jurisdiction to review an order that sends the dispute to arbitration. Applying the rule that interlocutory appellate jurisdiction exists only by statute, the court examined Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 51.016 (FAA orders) and 9 U.S.C. § 16, which expressly bars interlocutory appeals from orders staying litigation and compelling arbitration. The court also found no Texas statutory authority (including under the TAA) permitting an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a motion to compel arbitration (as opposed to orders denying arbitration). Because the order did not dispose of all parties and claims and no statute authorized immediate review, the court held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

Litigation Takeaway

"If the trial court compels arbitration and stays your case, you generally cannot take an immediate appeal—so you must treat the compel-arbitration hearing as a make-or-break event, build a clean record, and consider mandamus only in the rare case of a clear abuse of discretion with no adequate appellate remedy."

Evidence

AOC TX, LLC d/b/a Angels of Care Pediatric Home Health v. Naomi Landeros and Carlos Silva, Individually and as Next Friend of O.S., Deceased Minor

COA08

In this medical liability case involving the tragic death of a medically fragile infant, the parents sued a home health provider. The defendant challenged the qualifications of the parents' nurse and physician experts, arguing they were not 'practicing' at the time required by law. The El Paso Court of Appeals strictly interpreted Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 74.402, finding that because the nurse had not practiced since 2021 and the doctor retired in 2019—while the claim arose in 2023—they failed the mandatory temporal requirements for experts. The court held the trial court abused its discretion in accepting the reports and reversed the ruling, though it remanded the case to allow the parents an opportunity to cure the technical deficiencies.

Litigation Takeaway

"Expert experience alone is insufficient if it is not contemporaneous with the case; to survive a motion to strike, an expert must be in active clinical practice or teaching at an accredited institution at the time the claim arose or when testimony is given. In family law cases involving medically fragile children or specialized needs, practitioners must scrutinize the 'active' status of experts to ensure their testimony is not disqualified for being out-of-date."

Evidence

In the Matter of M.A.R. Jr., A Child

COA13

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a juvenile court's order committing a minor, M.A.R. Jr., to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD). The conflict centered on whether the State had satisfied the "reasonable efforts" requirement of the Texas Family Code before removing the child from his home environment. Despite the child's diagnoses of autism and ADHD and his father's willingness to take custody, the Court analyzed the extensive history of failed interventions—including community supervision, psychiatric services, and a residential facility placement where the minor accumulated hundreds of incident reports. The Court held that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the finding that local resources were exhausted and that commitment was necessary for the child's rehabilitation and public safety.

Litigation Takeaway

"When a child's removal from the home is at stake due to behavioral issues, the 'paper trail' is everything; a documented history of 'graduated sanctions' and failed local interventions is often the deciding factor in satisfying the legal 'reasonable efforts' standard."

Safe Way Carrier, LLC v. Yurii Pavlichko

COA01

In an appeal from a Harris County judgment, the appellant missed the opening-brief deadline and then ignored the First Court of Appeals’ delinquency notice giving an additional ten days to file a brief or seek an extension. Applying Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.3 and 43.2(f), the court treated the failure to comply with the briefing rules and clerk’s notice as abandonment of the appeal and dismissed the case for want of prosecution, rendering the trial court’s judgment effectively final. The court also dismissed any pending motions as moot.

Litigation Takeaway

"Appellate deadlines are unforgiving: if you miss your brief deadline, respond immediately to a TRAP 42.3 delinquency notice with a filed brief or a motion for extension—silence will likely end the appeal and leave the trial-court judgment intact (and any pending motions moot)."

Ortiz v. Flores

COA01

After the trial court signed a final order dismissing James Ortiz’s case for want of prosecution, Ortiz (pro se) waited more than five months to file his notice of appeal. The First Court of Appeals treated the deadline to perfect appeal as strictly jurisdictional under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because Ortiz filed no post-judgment motion that would extend the appellate timetable from 30 to 90 days (e.g., motion for new trial or motion to reinstate), and he did not file within the additional 15-day extension window with a motion to extend, his notice was untimely. Lacking a timely notice of appeal, the appellate court held it had no authority to reach the merits and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, also dismissing pending motions as moot.

Litigation Takeaway

"In Texas family cases, the notice-of-appeal deadline is a hard jurisdictional gate: miss the 30-day deadline (or the 90-day deadline if extended by a timely post-judgment motion) and the court of appeals cannot help you—ever. Calendar the signed-date immediately, file a motion for new trial/reinstate when appropriate to extend deadlines, and if you’re late, use the 15-day TRAP 26.3 window with a motion to extend; otherwise your opponent’s judgment becomes effectively appeal-proof."

General trial issues

Salmeron v. Atascocita Forest Community Association

COA01

Homeowners who had sued to stop an HOA foreclosure were electronically served with the HOA’s plea to the jurisdiction and notice of submission, but they did not respond by the submission date and the trial court granted the plea and dismissed the case. On motion for new trial, the homeowners argued Hurricane Beryl caused a power/internet “system outage” that prevented timely receipt of e-service and warranted relief under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21(f)(6), along with a three-day extension under Rule 21a(c) and relief under the Craddock framework. The First Court of Appeals held that Rule 21(f)(6) does not provide automatic tolling based on a general disaster; the movant must present specific, evidence-backed facts showing when notice was actually received or when the outage ended and why they could not act (including seeking a continuance) once access was restored. Because the homeowners offered no concrete timeline for restoration of electricity/access or diligent efforts to monitor e-service—and their participation in a later hearing undercut the claim that they were unable to engage with the court—the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying new trial and letting the dismissal stand. The court also held the three-day rule for mail service does not apply to e-service, and the motion for new trial was too conclusory to satisfy Craddock’s “no conscious indifference” requirement.

Litigation Takeaway

"E-service deadlines start immediately and aren’t automatically extended by storms or outages. If you miss a deadline and claim a “technical failure,” you must prove it with a detailed outage timeline (when access returned/when notice was actually seen), show diligent efforts to check the case, and seek prompt relief (e.g., continuance/extension) as soon as you can—otherwise the judgment/dismissal is likely to stand."

In Re Benjamin Oshea Calhoun

COA01

Benjamin Oshea Calhoun (pro se) filed an original petition for writ of habeas corpus in the First Court of Appeals seeking a reduction of bail set in his pending Harris County criminal case. The court focused on subject-matter jurisdiction, contrasting (1) Texas Government Code § 22.221(d), which gives intermediate courts of appeals original habeas jurisdiction only when a person is restrained for violating an order, judgment, or decree in a civil case (i.e., civil-contempt-type restraints), with (2) Texas Code of Criminal Procedure art. 11.05, which vests original criminal habeas jurisdiction in the Court of Criminal Appeals, district courts, and county courts. Because Calhoun sought original habeas relief directed to a criminal bond issue—outside the narrow civil-order restraint contemplated by § 22.221(d)—the court held it had no original habeas jurisdiction to consider the request and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction (without reaching the merits, and noting the petition’s TRAP 52 defects were not the primary basis for disposition).

Litigation Takeaway

"Forum-check habeas relief. Texas courts of appeals can entertain original habeas only for restraints tied to violation of a civil-case order (common in family-law contempt); they cannot take original habeas to reduce criminal bail. If the restraint is criminal (even if factually related to a family dispute), file original habeas in the proper trial court under Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.05 and reach the court of appeals only through appellate review."

VKA Investments, LLC v. Anthony Baiamonte, III

COA01

After the parties mediated a settlement while an appeal was abated, they filed an agreed joint motion asking the First Court of Appeals to reinstate the appeal solely to dismiss it, tax costs per their agreement, and—critically—issue the mandate immediately. Applying TRAP 42.1(a)(1) (dismissal by agreement), TRAP 42.1(d) (costs by agreement), and TRAP 18.1(c) (mandate may issue with the judgment by agreement), the court treated the settlement as controlling and found no reason to keep the merits alive. The court reinstated the case on its docket, dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits, ordered each side to bear its own appellate costs, and directed the clerk to issue the mandate concurrently with the opinion and judgment, eliminating the usual post-judgment waiting period and making the trial-court judgment immediately final for practical purposes.

Litigation Takeaway

"When an appeal settles—especially in divorce or custody cases where delay can be leverage—don’t just dismiss the appeal. File an agreed joint motion that (1) dismisses under TRAP 42.1 and (2) expressly requests an immediate mandate under TRAP 18.1(c). That single request can collapse the normal rehearing/petition timeline, accelerate finality, and help lock in settlement performance (QDROs, property transfers, schedule changes) before “buyer’s remorse” or appellate gamesmanship sets in."

Landers v. Norwood

COA01

In Landers v. LDG Norwood, the appellant appealed a Harris County civil court judgment but failed to file an opening brief by the October 13, 2025 deadline. After the deadline passed, the First Court of Appeals issued a clerk’s notice on October 23, 2025 warning that the appeal would be dismissed unless the appellant filed a brief or a motion for extension within ten days. The appellant did neither. Applying Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.3 (involuntary dismissal for failure to comply with rules/court notices) and 43.2(f) (dismissal as a form of appellate judgment), the court treated the non-filing and non-response as abandonment of the appeal and concluded that, without a brief or explanation, there was nothing to review and no basis to keep the case on the docket. The court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and dismissed any pending motions as moot, leaving the trial court’s judgment intact.

Litigation Takeaway

"Appeals can be lost on paperwork, not merits: if you miss the brief deadline and ignore a TRAP 42.3 warning notice, the court will summarily dismiss the appeal—so docket monitoring, calendaring, and prompt motions for extension are essential (especially in fast-paced family-law/accelerated appeals)."

Termination of Parental Rights

Valerie Lauren Mata v. The State of Texas

COA01

In Mata v. State, the defendant pleaded guilty to improper relationship with a student and received a five-year sentence, then attempted to appeal despite having signed a waiver of appeal. The First Court of Appeals analyzed whether it had jurisdiction in light of that waiver where sentencing was left to the trial court (i.e., not a fixed-sentence plea bargain). Applying Ex parte Broadway and Carson, the court treated the waiver as a bargained-for exchange and held it is enforceable when supported by consideration—here, the State’s waiver of its right to a jury trial—even without an agreed sentence. Because the trial court’s certification correctly reflected that Mata had no right of appeal, the appellate court was required to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Litigation Takeaway

"A properly documented criminal appellate waiver can make a conviction effectively “final” immediately, eliminating appellate-delay arguments in related family cases. In termination or custody litigation involving criminal conduct, obtain the clerk’s record and certification to confirm (1) a signed waiver, and (2) consideration (e.g., the State waived a jury). Then use the dismissal/waiver to oppose stays and to support termination grounds or evidentiary finality arguments."