IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00286-CV

CURTIS HARDAWAY, JR.,

Appellant

v.

NARSTCO INC., CHAPARRAL STEEL MIDLOTHIAN

LP, CHAPARRAL STEEL TEXAS LLC, CHAPARRAL

STEEL COMPANY, GERDAU AMERISTEEL ENERGY 

INC., AND GERDAU AMERISTEEL US INC.,

Appellees

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 traditional motion for summary 

judgment and orders that Hardaway take nothing from Narstco Inc. in this lawsuit. The 

order therefore disposes of all claims existing between Hardaway and Narstco Inc. in this 
Hardaway 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 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.012 (West 2015). None of the exceptions to the 

rule that only final judgments can be appealed apply in this case. See id. § 51.014 (West 

Supp. 2018) (listing interlocutory orders that may be appealed before final judgment is 

rendered in the case). 

By letter dated September 19, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified Hardaway that 

this appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction because it appeared that all 

pending parties had not been disposed of and that there was, therefore, 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 showed grounds for 

continuing the appeal. 

Additionally, in the September 19, 2018 letter, Hardaway was notified that this 

appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction because it appeared that his notice 

of appeal was not timely filed. Appeals from interlocutory orders (when allowed by 

statute) are accelerated appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1(a). Therefore, the notice of appeal 

must have been filed within twenty days after the interlocutory order was signed. Id. at 

26.1(b). The order from which Hardaway appeals was signed on August 3, 2018, and his 
Hardaway v. Narstco Inc. Page 3

notice 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 filing a motion 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. App.—Waco 2002, order). 

Hardaway’s notice of appeal was filed within the fifteen-day window. The 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, the Court may dismiss this appeal 

unless, within ten days of the date of the letter, he provided 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 provides 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.

This 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

Justice
Hardaway v. Narstco Inc. Page 4

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and 

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed October 24, 2018

[CV06]