Shamoun Klatsky Norman, LLP v. Cisco Systems Capital Corporation

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-07-203-CV SHAMOUN KLATSKY NORMAN, LLP APPELLANT V. CISCO SYSTEMS CAPITAL CORPORATION APPELLEE ------------ FROM THE 48TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY ------------ MEMORANDUM OPINION (footnote: 1) ------------ Appellant Shamoun Klatsky Norman, LLP’s notice of appeal indicates that it is attempting to appeal from the trial court’s “award of sanctions” that was “pronounced” on May 18, 2007. However, the trial court clerk has informed this court that no written order awarding sanctions has been signed. A trial court’s oral pronouncement is not an acceptable substitute for a written order. Emerald Oaks Hotel/Conference Ctr., Inc. v. Zardenetta , 776 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex. 1989) (orig. proceeding); McCormack v. Guillot , 597 S.W.2d 345, 346-47 (Tex. 1980) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, appellant’s notice of appeal is premature. See Tex. R. App. P . 26.1, 27.1(a); Harrison v. TDCJ-ID , 134 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, order). A prematurely filed notice of appeal is not effective until the appellate deadline is triggered and therefore does not vest this court with jurisdiction over the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P . 25.1(b), 27.1(a) . On June 18, 2007, we notified appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction and gave appellant fifteen days to correct this defect in the record. See Tex. R. App. P . 44.3, 44.4(a)(2). Appellant has not tendered or filed any signed orders from the trial court. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(a), 43.2(f). PER CURIAM PANEL D: MCCOY, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J. DELIVERED: August 2, 2007 FOOTNOTES 1: See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.