Full text
Uber Technologies, Inc., and Rasier, LLC v. Brooks W. Boenig and Bridget B. Connolly-Boenig
FILE COPY
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas December 8, 2022
No. 04-22-00805-CV
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and Rasier, LLC, Appellants
v.
Brooks W. BOENIG and Bridget B. Connolly-Boenig, Appellees
From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022CI02105 Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding
ORDER On November 30, 2022, Appellants filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s “Order of November 10, 2022.” The clerk’s record shows the trial court’s handwritten notes from that date, but a judge’s notes “are not the kind of document[] that constitute a judgment, decision or order from which an appeal may be taken.” See Goff v. Tuchscherer, 627 S.W.2d 397, 398–99 (Tex. 1982); Lares v. Muniz, No. 04-20-00047-CV, 2020 WL 2441423, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 13, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also In re A.W., 384 S.W.3d 872, 873 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.) (“[A] judge’s notes are for his or her own convenience and form no part of the record.”). We ORDER Appellants to show cause in writing within TEN DAYS of the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). If Appellants do not timely provide written proof as ordered, this appeal will be dismissed without further notice. See id. All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court.
_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
FILE COPY
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 8th day of December, 2022.
___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court