Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 21, 2016

No. 04-16-00519-CV

Loren BREWER,

Appellant

v.

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Schlumberge, N.V. a/k/a 

Schlumberger Limited and Jose Salazar Jr.,

Appellees

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-09-53692-CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed October 7, 2016. Our review of the clerk’s records shows 

appellant filed a notice of appeal in which he contends he is appealing the “FINAL SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT” signed May 12, 2016. After reviewing the clerk’s record, it initially appears 

appellant brought sought against, and served: (1) Schlumberger Technology Corporation; (2) 

Schlumberger, N.V. a/k/a Schlumberger Limited; (3) Rig Relocators, LLC; (4) Rig Relocators; 

and (5) Jose Salazar Jr. The record shows the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of 

the Schlumberger entities by order signed May 12, 2016. On that same date, by separate order, 

the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Salazar. However, we can find no order, 

judgment, or other document disposing of the claims against Rig Relocators, LLC and Rig 

Relocators. We recognize appellees contend these last two entities were never served, but the 

documents in the record suggest otherwise. 

Accordingly, based on our review of the record, it appears there is no order or judgment 

in this case disposing of appellant’s claims against Rig Relocators, LLC or Rig Relocators. 

Thus, the summary judgments rendered in favor of the Schlumberger entities and Salazar are 

interlocutory. In other words, there is no judgment or order — or series of judgments or orders 

— disposing of all the claims and parties in this case. Generally, an appeal may be taken only 

from a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 196 (Tex. 2001). A 

judgment is final for appellate purposes if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the 

record. Id. There is no final judgment in the clerk’s record, and we have found no authority 

permitting an interlocutory appeal from partial summary judgment orders in the circumstances 
presented here. See Texas A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. 2007) 

(holding appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider interlocutory orders only if statute 

explicitly provides such jurisdiction). 

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file a written response in this court on or before 

December 21, 2016, showing cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction. If appellant fails to satisfactorily respond within the time provided, the appeal will 

be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). If a supplemental clerk’s record is required to 

establish this court’s jurisdiction, appellant must ask the district clerk to prepare one and 

must notify the clerk of this court in writing within December 1, 2016 that such a request 

was made. All deadlines in this matter are suspended until further order of the court.

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on the trial court, appellant, 

appellees, and the district clerk. 

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of November, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court