Pierce Mortuary Colleges, Inc. v. Bjerke
| Decision Date | 08 October 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-92-01327-CV,05-92-01327-CV |
| Citation | 841 S.W.2d 878 |
| Parties | PIERCE MORTUARY COLLEGES, INC., et al., Appellants, v. Frederick BJERKE, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Scott W. MacLaren, Kenneth G. Stone, Brian J. Brandstetter, Dallas, for appellants.
Dale B. Tillery, Dallas, for appellees.
Before LAGARDE, BURNETT and ROSENBERG, JJ.
Pierce Mortuary Colleges, Inc., Pierce Mortuary Colleges Inc., d/b/a Dallas Institute of Funeral Service, Professional Training Schools, Inc., and Thomas Shaw (collectively Dallas Institute) appeal the amended order certifying class action granted in favor of Frederick Bjerke, Nanette Rives, Ila Greene, David Young, Maria Evans, Richard Gambrell, Jessie Nickerson, Phillys Groves, and Virginia Shaw (collectively Bjerke). In three points of error, Dallas Institute contends that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the amended class certification because the class certification fails to meet the requirements of rule 42 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons given below, we conclude that this appeal has not been properly perfected. Accordingly, we do not reach the merits of Dallas Institute's points of error and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Bjerke brought a class action suit contending that students of the Dallas Institute observed or participated in the embalming procedures performed on several decedents without the permission of the decedents' relatives or other representatives. On April 10, 1992, the trial court signed a class certification order in favor of Bjerke. This order defined the class as the surviving spouses, children, next of kin, or other representatives of the decedents for those bodies embalmed on the campus of Dallas Institute of Funeral Service and at Dudley M. Hughes Funeral Company from 1985 through 1989.
Dallas Institute did not timely appeal this class certification order. On April 15, 1992, Dallas Institute filed a motion to reconsider. Anticipating the ruling of the trial court on its motion, Dallas Institute filed an appeal to the anticipated ruling on May 8, 1992. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court signed an amended certification order, dated May 14, 1992. This May 14 order expanded the class to include other "heirs-at-law" and changed the relevant dates, from 1985 through 1989, to 1985 through 1991.
On its own motion, this Court questioned whether it had jurisdiction over this appeal because Dallas Institute failed to timely appeal the original order certifying class action. The Court asked the parties to brief the jurisdictional issues. Subsequently, Bjerke filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Bjerke asserts that section 51.014(3) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code does not provide for an appeal from an amended order certifying class action. In response, Dallas Institute argues that an amended interlocutory order supersedes the original order, and thereby becomes an appealable interlocutory order pursuant to section 51.014(3) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Dallas Institute asserts that, since the trial court was within its rights to amend the original order, an appeal could be taken from any such order, as long as it is filed within twenty days of the date the trial court signed the amended order. Dallas Institute relies on rule 42(c)(1) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Grant v. Austin Bridge Constr. Co., 725 S.W.2d 366, 367-69 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ), to support this proposition.
Except as authorized by statute no appeal lies from an interlocutory order. Cherokee Water Co. v. Ross, 698 S.W.2d 363, 365 (Tex.1985); Browne v. Bear, Stearns & Co., 766 S.W.2d 823, 824 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1989, writ denied). An interlocutory appeal of a class action certification is authorized by the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. Section 51.014 provides:
A person may appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court, county court at law, or county court that:
....
(3) certifies or refuses to certify a class in a suit brought under Rule 42 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 51.014(3) (Vernon Supp.1992).
In this case Dallas Institute moved for reconsideration of a court order certifying the size of a class. The trial court amended its order to increase the size of the class, and then Dallas Institute appealed the amended order because the order did not sufficiently expand the class. Similarly in Grant v. Austin Bridge Constr. Co., the trial court entered a second order withdrawing an order certifying a class action and the second order was appealed. 725 S.W.2d 366 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ). The appellate court reasoned that "[w]ithdrawal of certification is a form of refusal to certify and is an appealable interlocutory order within the meaning of § 51.014." 725 S.W.2d at 368. As a refusal to certify, the vacating order met the requirements of section 51.014(3). However, an amended order increasing the size of an existing certified class does not certify or refuse to certify a class pursuant to section 51.014(3). Throughout the course of the litigation, the trial court maintains the power to change orders concerning the class certification. Rule 42(c)(1) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
[T]he court shall, after a hearing, determine by order whether it is to be so maintained. This determination may be altered, amended, or withdrawn at any time before final judgment.
Even though the trial court has the power to change the class certification, an amended order certifying class action must meet the requirements of section 51.014(3) for an interlocutory appeal.
Dallas Institute argues that Texas courts have found appellate jurisdiction in analogous cases involving temporary injunctions. See Currie v. International Telecharge, Inc., 722 S.W.2d 471 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1986, no writ); Nutt v. Curles, 418 S.W.2d 327 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1967, writ ref'd n.r.e.). In Currie, this Court held that a modification of the temporary injunction was appealable although the original temporary injunction had not been appealed. 722 S.W.2d at 472-73. The analogy to temporary injunctions, however, is misplaced. In Currie, this Court found that the underlying reason for allowing an accelerated appeal from a modification of a temporary injunction was the apparent intent expressed by the Legislature given the similarity among the orders named. 722 S.W.2d at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metzger v. Sebek
...Where a court of appeals has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order, it dismisses the appeal. See, e.g., Pierce Mortuary Colleges, Inc. v. Bjerke, 841 S.W.2d 878 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1992, no writ) (order amending class certification); Pelt v. State Bd. of Ins., 802 S.W.2d 822 (Tex.Ap......
-
National Western Life Ins. Co. v. Rowe
...establishment of sub-classes can cure definitional problem in original certification order); Pierce Mortuary Colls., Inc. v. Bjerke, 841 S.W.2d 878, 879 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, writ denied) (trial court amended certification order, expanding class to include additional group of individuals a......
-
Ahmed v. Shimi Ventures, L.P.
...jurisdictional issue, reviewing by interlocutory appeal order modifying temporary injunction); Pierce Mortuary Colls., Inc. v. Bjerke, 841 S.W.2d 878, 880 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, writ denied) (in dicta, explaining why Currie's holding was correct for orders modifying temporary injunctions, b......
-
M.M.O., In re
...class unless the party has already perfected an appeal from the original class certification. See Pierce Mortuary Colleges, Inc. v. Bjerke, 841 S.W.2d 878 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1992, writ denied). But see De Los Santos v. Occidental Chem. Corp., 933 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Tex.1996) (order modifying c......