### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 18
- 00286
- CV CURTIS HARDAWAY, JR. , Appellant v. NARSTCO INC., CHAPAR RAL STEEL MIDLOTHIAN LP, CHAPARRAL STEEL TEXAS LLC, CHAPARRAL STEEL COMPANY, GERDA U AMERISTEEL ENERGY INC., AND GERDAU AME RISTEEL US INC. , Appellee s

From the 40th District Court Ellis County, Texas Trial Court No. 95996

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Curtis Hardaway, Jr., appeals from the “Order Granting Defendant’s Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment,” which was signed by the trial court on August 3, 2018. The order grants Appellee Narstco Inc.’s tradition al motion for summary judgment and orders that Hardaway take nothing from Narstco Inc. in th is law suit. The
order therefore disposes of all claims existing bet ween Hardaway and Narstco Inc. in thisHardaway v. Narstco Inc. Page 2

lawsuit. The order does not, however, dispose of all pending parties and claims in this
lawsuit and is therefore not a final judgment. See Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). In fact, Hardaway ’s notice of appeal states that this appeal is interlocutory. This Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a judgment that is not final, unless there is specific statutory authority permitting an appeal before final judgment.
See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 51.012 (West 2015). None of the exceptions to the rule that only final judgments can be appealed apply in this case. See id. § 51.01 4 (West Supp. 2018 ) (listing interlocutory orders that may be appealed before final judgment is
render ed in the case). By letter dated September 19, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified Hardaway that this appeal wa s subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction because it appear ed that all pending parties ha d not been disposed of and that there wa s, t herefore, no final judgment. The Clerk of this Court notified Hardaway that the Court may dismiss this appeal unless, within ten days of the date of the letter, Hardaway show ed grounds for continuing the appeal. Additionally, i n the September 19, 2018 letter, Hardaway was notified t hat this appeal wa s subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction because it appear ed that his notice of appeal was not timely filed. Appeals from interlocutory orders (when allowed by statute) are a ccelerated appeals. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.1(a). Therefore, the notice of appeal must have been filed within twenty days after the interlocutory order was signed. I d. at 26.1(b). The order from which Hardaway appeals was signed on August 3, 2018, and hisHardaway v. Narstco Inc. Page 3

n otice of appeal was filed on August 31, 2018. Therefore, even if this was an appeal authorized from an interlocutory order, the notice of appeal was untimely. But if, as here, the notice of appeal was filed within the fifteen

- day window for f iling a moti on for extension of time to file notice of appeal, the Court must imply a motion for extension of time if an appellant can show a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal. See id. at 26.3; In re B.G. , 104 S.W.3d 565, 567 (Tex. Ap p. — Waco 2002, order). Hardaway’s notice of appeal was filed within the fifteen

- day window. T he Clerk of the
Court therefore also notified Hardaway in the September 19, 2018 letter that even if this was an appeal authorized from an interlocutory order, th e Court may dismiss this appeal unless, within ten days of the date of th e letter, he provide d a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal. Hardaway subsequently filed a motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal, in which he provide s an explanation for the late filing of his notice of appeal. Hardaway , however, does not cite any authority that would permit an appeal from this interlocutory order. Accordingly, Hardaway has not shown grounds for continuing the appeal.
T his appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Likewise, Hardaway’s motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal is dismissed.

REX D. DAVIS JusticeHardaway v. Narstco Inc. Page 4

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Appeal dismissed Opinion de livered and filed October 24, 2018 [CV06]