LEGAL INTERPRETATION NEEDED: IS THIS A "LA BABOSA" WIN?

(Ed.'s Note: By now we're used to getting bashed gratuitously by our resident legal eagle AKA Robert "La Babosa" Wightman when we post his chronic defeats in the courts. In the decision below and in the text explaining the appeals court upholding of the rulings of the lower courts in the defamation lawsuit filed by Mike Hernandez, we gather  Wightman took it in his designer shorts. We're not lawyers, or disbarred ones like Wightman, [thank Joshua], so are we wrong to say he lost here, once again?)

FROM THE 153RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 153-289655-16
PANEL: SUDDERTH, C.J.; GABRIEL and PITTMAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION: LEE GABRIEL JUSTICE

Appellant Robert R. Wightman-Cervantes attempts to bring an interlocutory appeal from the alleged denial of his motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 27.003(a), .008(a) (West 2015), § 51.014(a)(12) (West Supp. 2017).

 It is undisputed that the trial court never signed an order denying the motion. Wightman-Cervantes filed his notice of appeal believing that his motion was denied by operation of law. See id. § 27.008(a). But we conclude that it was not.

It is undisputed that the trial court never held a hearing on the motion. And that fact is fatal to this appeal. For although the TCPA has a mechanism by which a motion to dismiss can be denied by operation of law, the statute's plain language provides that occurs only if the trial court fails to rule on the motion within thirty days after the trial court's hearing on the motion. See id. §§ 27.005(a) (West 2015), .008(a).

Since the trial court held no hearing on Wightman-Cervantes's motion, it necessarily did not fail to rule on that motion within thirty days after the hearing on the motion. Thus, Wightman-Cervantes's motion was not denied by operation of law.

Because Wightman-Cervantes's motion was never denied, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See id. § 51.014(a)(12) (authorizing an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss filed under the TCPA). We therefore dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.