Angel Mid-Jeff Joint Venture LLP v. Port Arthur Independent School District

2026-08-27

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court dismissed the accelerated appeal for lack of jurisdiction because AMJ neither filed a special appearance under the rule governing challenges to personal or property jurisdiction, nor was AMJ a governmental unit raising a plea to the jurisdiction as required by the statute authorizing accelerated appeals.

Port Arthur Independent School District initiated a condemnation proceeding against Angel Mid-Jeff Joint Venture LLP in April 2026. Before a scheduled hearing on the school district's request to enter the property, AMJ filed a special appearance and plea to the jurisdiction, contending the trial court lacked authority to proceed without completing an administrative phase first. The trial court signed orders on July 6 and July 21, 2026 appointing special commissioners and authorizing entry upon the property. AMJ appealed, characterizing the matter as an accelerated interlocutory appeal from the denial of its jurisdictional challenges.

The appellate court found that neither statutory provision supporting accelerated appeals applied to AMJ's filing. Under the relevant statute, accelerated appeals from pleas to the jurisdiction are permitted only when a governmental unit raises such a plea—not when a private party does so. Similarly, accelerated appeals from special appearances apply only when the special appearance challenges personal or property jurisdiction, but AMJ did not base its appearance on such grounds. Since AMJ failed to invoke a proper basis for accelerated appellate review, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether an accelerated appeal was properly invoked under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014
Whether a private party's plea to jurisdiction qualifies for accelerated appeal
Whether a special appearance not based on lack of personal or property jurisdiction supports accelerated appeal
Appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory orders in condemnation proceedings

Procedural posture

The case was appealed to the Ninth District Court of Appeals from a county court decision, with the appellate court questioning its jurisdiction before deciding to dismiss for lack thereof.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

NO. 09-26-00271-CV

ANGEL MID-JEFF JOINT VENTURE LLP, Appellant

PORT ARTHUR INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court Law No. 1

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 26CCCV0306

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Upon receiving the clerk’s record and an amended notice of accelerated

appeal, through a letter issued by the Clerk of the Court we questioned our

jurisdiction and requested responses from the parties. We dismiss the accelerated

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

On April 9, 2026, Appellee Port Arthur Independent School District

(“PAISD”) filed an Original Petition in Condemnation. A citation was issued

pursuant to an Order Granting Motion for Substituted Service. After the citation was

returned served on June 1, 2026, PAISD filed a Motion for Order Authorizing Entry

Upon Property and a notice for a hearing on July 2, 2026. Shortly before the

scheduled time for the hearing, Appellant Angel Mid-Jeff Joint Venture LLP

(“AMJ”) filed a Special Appearance to Plea to the Jurisdiction. AMJ argued the trial

court lacked jurisdiction to proceed without any compliance with the administrative

phase of the condemnation.

On July 6, 2026, the trial court signed an Order Appointing Special

Commissioners and an Order Authorizing Entry Upon Property. AMJ filed a Notice

of Appeal “from the denial of AMJ’s special appearance and plea to the jurisdiction,

order authorizing entry on property and all portions of them[.]” The clerk’s record

does not contain an order denying the Special Appearance to Plea to the Jurisdiction.

Upon receiving the Notice of Appeal, we notified the parties that the Notice

of Appeal neither states the date of the judgment or order appealed from nor states

that the appeal is an accelerated appeal, and we directed AMJ to file an Amended

Notice of Appeal. AMJ filed an amended notice of appeal giving “notice of

interlocutory appeal from the denial of AMJ’s special appearance and plea to the

jurisdiction, effectively denied by orders of July 6, 2026, and July 21, 2026,

authorizing entry upon property during the administrative phase[.]” We questioned

whether our appellate jurisdiction had been properly invoked and requested

responses from the parties.

Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(a)(8) permits an accelerated

appeal from an interlocutory order that “grants or denies a plea to the jurisdiction by

a governmental unit as that term is defined in Section 101.001.” That subsection

cannot authorize the accelerated appeal here, where a person filed a plea to the

jurisdiction against a governmental unit. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §

51.014(a)(8).

Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(a)(7) permits an accelerated

appeal from an interlocutory order that “grants or denies the special appearance of a

defendant under Rule 120a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, except in a suit brought

under the Family Code.” Id. 51.014(a)(7). Rule 120a provides for a special

appearance “by any party either in person or by attorney for the purpose of objecting

to the jurisdiction of the court over the person or property of the defendant on the

ground that such party or property is not amenable to process issued by the courts

of this State.” See Tex. R. Civ. P. 120a (emphasis added). AMJ did not file a special

appearance on the ground that it is not amenable to process in the courts of the State

of Texas.

Appellant has not shown that the trial court signed an order that denies the

special appearance of a defendant under Rule 120a or denies a plea to the jurisdiction

by a governmental unit. Accordingly, we dismiss the accelerated appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 26, 2026

Opinion Delivered August 27, 2026

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.

Appellant also filed a petition for a writ of mandamus which the Clerk of the

Court docketed as Number 09-26-00301-CV In re Angel Mid-Jeff Joint Venture LLP.