Opinion issued November 14, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00580-CV

———————————

SHUNYI WANG AND A PLUS WIRE MESH COMPANY, Appellants

V.

PENG ZHANG, Appellee

On Appeal from the 129th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2020-43168

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, Shunyi Wang and A Plus Wire Mesh Company (collectively, 

“appellants”), have filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s July 10, 2023

interlocutory order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee, Peng Zhang.

We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
2

In their first amended petition, appellants brought claims against Zhang and 

others for conversion, conspiracy, tortious interference with an existing contract, and 

negligence. Zhang answered, generally denying the allegations in appellants’ 

petition. Zhang also brought counterclaims against appellants for assault, invasion 

of privacy, conversion, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.

Zhang then moved for summary judgment on appellants’ claims against him 

for conversion, conspiracy, tortious interference with an existing contract, and 

negligence, asserting that no evidence supported appellants’ claims.

On July 10, 2023, the trial court granted Zhang summary judgment on 

appellants’ claims against him, ordering that appellants take nothing on their claims 

against Zhang and dismissing appellants’ claims against Zhang with prejudice.

“[C]ourts always have jurisdiction to determine their own jurisdiction.”

Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 146 n.14 (Tex. 2012) (internal 

quotations omitted); see also Royal Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Ragsdale, 273 S.W.3d 759, 

763 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (jurisdiction fundamental in 

nature and cannot be ignored). If this case is an appeal over which we have no 

jurisdiction, the appeal must be dismissed. V.I.P. Royal Palace, LLC v. Hobby Event 

Ctr. LLC, No. 01-18-00621-CV, 2020 WL 3579563, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 

Dist.] July 2, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.); Ragsdale, 273 S.W.3d at 763.
3

Generally, this Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments 

and specific interlocutory orders that the Texas Legislature has designated as 

appealable orders. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.012; CMH Homes 

v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447–48 (Tex. 2011); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE ANN. § 51.014 (authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders). A 

judgment issued without a conventional trial is final for appeal only if it: (1) actually 

disposes of all claims and parties then before the court, regardless of its language or 

(2) states with “unmistakable clarity” that it is a final judgment as to all claims and 

all parties. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 192–93, 200, 204 (Tex. 

2001).

Here, the trial court’s July 10, 2023 summary-judgment order does not 

actually dispose of all claims against all parties. The trial court’s order only granted 

summary judgment on appellants’ claims against Zhang and only dismissed

appellants’ claims against Zhang with prejudice. At the very least, Zhang’s 

counterclaims against appellants remain pending in the trial court.

Additionally, the trial court’s July 10, 2023 summary-judgment order does not 

contain finality language that could turn an otherwise interlocutory order into a final 

judgment. See In re Elizondo, 544 S.W.3d 824, 828–29 (Tex. 2018). The order does 

not claim to be anything other than an interlocutory-summary-judgment order 

resolving only appellants’ claims against Zhang. See Banda v. Herba Ricemills, 
4

S.L.V., No. 01-19-00802-CV, 2020 WL 5552461, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 

Dist.] Sept. 17, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).

On October 19, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified appellantsthat we lacked

jurisdiction over their appeal and directed appellants that, unless a response was 

provided within ten days, in writing, demonstrating that this Court has jurisdiction 

over the appeal, the appeal would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). Appellants did not adequately respond.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Hightower and Countiss.