Ruben Dario Almela v. the Promised Land Holdings, L.P.
Docket 08-26-00118-CV
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Dismissed
- Docket
- 08-26-00118-CV
Appeal from a trial court order granting a motion to dismiss and awarding attorney's fees without setting the fee amount
Summary
The Court of Appeals dismissed Ruben Dario Almela’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court had granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and also granted attorney’s fees but did not set the fee amount, so the order did not resolve all claims or parties and was not a final, appealable judgment. The appellate court previously questioned jurisdiction and gave Almela time to show cause; he did not respond. Because the judgment was not final and Almela failed to justify appellate jurisdiction, the court dismissed the appeal and any pending motions as moot.
Issues Decided
- Whether the trial court's order was a final, appealable judgment when it granted attorney's fees but did not set the amount
- Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction over an appeal when the trial court's order did not dispose of all claims and parties
Court's Reasoning
Under governing Texas authority, an order that leaves the amount of attorney's fees undecided does not dispose of all claims and parties and therefore is not a final judgment. Because the trial court did not set the fee amount, the order failed to be final and appealable. The appellant did not respond to the court's show-cause order explaining why the appeal should proceed, so dismissal for want of jurisdiction was proper.
Authorities Cited
- Farm Bureau County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rogers455 S.W.3d 161 (Tex. 2015)
- Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a)
- Hill v. LievanosNo. 08-23-00151-CV, 2023 WL 4295854 (Tex. App.—El Paso June 30, 2023) (mem. op.)
Parties
- Appellant
- Ruben Dario Almela
- Appellee
- The Promised Land Holdings, L.P.
- Judge
- Maria Salas Mendoza, Chief Justice
Key Dates
- Trial court order date
- 2026-03-13
- Appellate show-cause order date
- 2026-03-24
- Appellate decision date
- 2026-04-14
- Show-cause response deadline
- 2026-04-03
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Request entry of final judgment in trial court
The appellant or appellee should move the trial court to set the amount of attorney's fees and enter a final judgment disposing of all claims and parties so an appeal can be taken.
- 2
Consult appellate counsel
The appellant should consult counsel to determine whether any procedural step (e.g., motion for reconsideration or clarification) can reopen appellate review or to prepare for further proceedings in the trial court.
- 3
Comply with trial-court deadlines
Parties should confirm and comply with any trial-court deadlines resulting from the dismissal order, including motions to set fees or enforcement steps, to avoid prejudice.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the appeals court decide?
- The appeals court dismissed the appeal because the trial court's order was not final: it awarded attorney's fees but did not set the amount, so not all issues were resolved.
- Who is affected by this dismissal?
- The appellant, Ruben Dario Almela, is affected because his appeal will not proceed; the trial court's dismissal with an unresolved fee amount remains subject to further proceedings in the trial court.
- What happens next in the trial court?
- The trial court likely must enter a final judgment that sets the attorney's fee amount or otherwise resolve remaining matters before an appeal can be taken.
- Can this dismissal be appealed?
- Generally, a dismissal for want of jurisdiction is not itself appealable as of right; the proper course is to seek to obtain a final, appealable judgment in the trial court first.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
————————————
No. 08-26-00118-CV
————————————
Ruben Dario Almela, Appellant
v.
The Promised Land Holdings, L.P., Appellee
On Appeal from the 41st District Court
El Paso County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2025DCV5187
M E MO RA N D UM O PI NI O N
Appellant, Ruben Dario Almela, attempts to appeal from the trial court’s March 13, 2026
order granting the appellee’s motion to dismiss and dismissing Almela’s claims with prejudice.
However, the trial court’s order granted a request for an award of attorney’s fees without setting
the amount of attorney’s fees. As a result, the order did not dispose of all claims and all parties,
and did not constitute a final judgment. See Farm Bureau Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rogers, 455 S.W.3d
161, 164 (Tex. 2015) (per curiam); Hill v. Lievanos, No. 08-23-00151-CV, 2023 WL 4295854, at
*1 (Tex. App.—El Paso June 30, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.); Chado v. PNL Blackacre, L.P., No. 05-
04-00312-CV, 2005 WL 428824, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 24, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.).
On March 24, 2026, we issued an order questioning our jurisdiction and directing Almela
to show, on or before April 3, 2026, why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction. Almela has not filed a response.
We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); Rogers, 455
S.W.3d at 164. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
MARIA SALAS MENDOZA, Chief Justice
April 14, 2026
Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
2