“In the absence of a special statute making an interlocutory order appealable, a judgment must dispose of all issues and parties in the case . . . to be final and appealable.”
How later courts described this case
- “In the absence of a special statute making an interlocutory order appealable, a judgment must dispose of all issues and parties in the case . . . to be final and appealable.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Opinion issued February 3, 2026
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-25-01003-CV
———————————
VENISHA ARNOLD, Appellant
V.
GOOGLE LLC, YOUTUBE LLC, ALPHABET, INC, REDDIT, INC,
FELIXLIGHTNER-REDDIT THREAD STARTER, RECHLIN-REDDIT
ADMIN, BOSHAUS-REDDIT ADMIN, MUNX1ER-REDDIT ADMIN,
SWHITT-REDDIT ADMIN, AND TEXLEX-REDDIT ADMIN., Appellees
On Appeal from the 129th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2025-52549
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Venisha Arnold, filed a notice of appeal on December 1, 2025
attempting to appeal the trial court’s November 26, 2025 order granting a motion to
dismiss filed by Reddit, Inc.—one of multiple defendants named in the underlying
suit—pursuant to Section 27.010(a)(3) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies
Code. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals from final
judgments unless a statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal. CMH Homes v. Perez,
340 S.W.3d 444, 447–48 (Tex. 2011); see N.Y. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez,
799 S.W.2d 677, 678–79 (Tex. 1990) (“In the absence of a special statute making an
interlocutory order appealable, a judgment must dispose of all issues and parties in
the case . . . to be final and appealable.”).
Here, the November 26, 2025 order is interlocutory because (1) the order
makes clear that the trial court must still rule on Reddit’s related request for
attorney’s fees, costs, and sanctions, and (2) appellant named other parties as
defendants in the underlying suit. Although Section 51.014(a)(12) grants a right to
interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss filed under Section
27.003, no statutory authority authorizes an interlocutory appeal from an order
granting a motion to dismiss under Section 27.003. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.
CODE § 51.014(a)(12) (authorizing appeal from interlocutory order that “denies a
motion to dismiss filed under Section 27.003”); Schlumberger Ltd. v. Rutherford,
472 S.W.3d 881, 887 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.) (holding that
no statutory authority provides for interlocutory appeal from grant of motion to
dismiss under § 27.003); Inwood Forest Cmty. Improvement Ass’n v. Arce, 485
2
S.W.3d 65, 70 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. denied) (“No statutory
authority exists, however, for an interlocutory appeal from the grant of a motion to
dismiss under section 27.003 of the TCPA.”). Thus, our Court lacks jurisdiction to
consider an interlocutory appeal of an order granting a motion to dismiss under
Section 27.003. See Fell Clutch, LLC v. Cherokee Black Entm’t Inc., No. 14-19-
00577-CV, 2020 WL 372978, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 23, 2020,
no pet.).
On December 23, 2025, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that this
appeal was subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a
written response within 10 days of the notice demonstrating that this Court has
jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a) (allowing involuntary
dismissal of appeal after notice). Appellant failed to adequately respond.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 42.3(a), (c), 43.2(f). All pending motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Gunn and Johnson.
3