In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-23-00241-CV 

 

AIDE AGNEW, APPELLANT 

V. 

EQYINVEST OWNER II LTD., LLP.; HEB BEVERAGE COMPANY LLC.; HEB LP 

(FORMERLY HEB GROCERY CO., LP.); HEBCO GP, LLC.; AND HEB INC., APPELLEES 

On Appeal from the 45th District Court 

Bexar County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2021-CI-13420, Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa, Presiding 

May 21, 2024 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Appellant, Aide Agnew, appeals from the trial court’s Order Granting Defendant’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment.

1

 We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

In 2021, Agnew sued Appellees, Eqyinvest Owner II Ltd., LLP; HEB Beverage 

Company LLC.; HEB LP (formerly HEB Grocery Co., LP.); HEBCO GP, LLC.; and HEB 

1 Originally appealed to the Fourth Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by 

the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
2

Inc., for damages after allegedly slipping and falling in an HEB grocery store. On August 

16, 2021, Agnew filed a notice nonsuiting her claims against Eqyinvest Owner II Ltd., LLP. 

The trial court, however, never signed an order granting the nonsuit. “H-E-B, LP” 

answered the suit, asserting that Agnew incorrectly named all HEB defendants, and 

moved for summary judgment on all claims. On May 3, 2023, the trial court signed the 

Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of “H-E-B, LP.” The 

order, however, did not include any language expressly adjudicating the rights of the 

parties involved.

Generally, with statutory exceptions, an appeal may be taken only from a final 

judgment. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When there has 

been no conventional trial on the merits, an order or judgment is not final for purposes of 

appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or it clearly and 

unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties. Id. at 205. 

Here, the trial court’s Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

is not a final, appealable order. It bears no language indicative of finality and the record 

does not reflect that all of Agnew’s claims against Appellees have been pursued, 

dismissed, or resolved. The summary judgment order does not address Agnew’s nonsuit 

of Eqyinvest Owner II Ltd., LLP. See Iacono v. Lyons, 6 S.W.3d 715, 716–17 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) (“Because the trial court did not sign either an order granting 

the nonsuit or a judgment memorializing the nonsuit, the partial summary judgment is not 

final.”). Nor does it address the disposition of Agnew’s claims against the remaining HEB 

Appellees. Finally, the summary judgment order lacks decretal language expressly 

adjudicating the rights of the parties involved. See Keenan v. Robin, No. 07-21-00190-
3

CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 1225, at *3–4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 22, 2022, no pet.) 

(per curiam) (mem. op.) (holding that a summary judgment order lacking decretal 

language is not a final judgment because it does “not adjudicate the rights involved or 

evince a final result recognized by the law”).

As an alternative to dismissing the appeal for want of jurisdiction, we remanded 

the cause to the trial court on March 11, 2024, for the trial court to issue such further 

orders necessary to create a final, appealable order or judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

27.2 (“The appellate court may allow an appealed order that is not final to be modified so 

as to be made final and may allow the modified order and all proceedings relating to it to 

be included in a supplemental record.”). In our order, we admonished the parties that 

unless a final, appealable order or judgment was included in a supplemental clerk’s record 

and filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before April 10, 2024, the appeal would be 

reinstated and dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

No supplemental clerk’s record was filed by this deadline. By letter of April 17, 

2024, we directed the parties to provide us with a status of the remand proceedings by 

May 1; again admonishing that if a final, appealable order or judgment was not received, 

the appeal would be reinstated and dismissed for want of jurisdiction without further 

notice. By letter, HEB provided the following response:

“. . . HEB drafted a proposed final judgment for review; it circulated the same 

to Agnew’s counsel on March 28, 2024. Agnew’s counsel represented by 

telephone that he would review the same, but did not communicate with the 

undersigned again. Because Agnew’s counsel did not indicate agreement 

or disagreement as to the form or substance of the proposed judgment, 

HEB’s trial counsel contacted the trial court regarding a hearing for 

consideration and entry of a signed final judgment. HEB has not yet been 

able to obtain a hearing date, and Agnew’s counsel has not communicated 
4

with the undersigned as to his hearing availability or intent regarding the 

appeal, so no new judgment has yet been signed.” 

Agnew, however, did not respond to the Court’s inquiry.

Accordingly, for the reasons expressed herein, we reinstate the appeal and 

dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. The appeal is dismissed.

Per Curiam