## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texa s at For t Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 22

- 00135

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 431st District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 21

- 10909

- 431
Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum O pinion 

### C ENTRAL 

### S TATES 

### W ATER 

### R ESOURCES 

### , I NC



### . , Appellant

V


### . T ERRA 

### S OUTHWEST 

### , I NC



### . , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
Be fore us is a motion to dismiss filed by Appellee Terra South west, In c. , asking
that we dismiss this appeal filed by Appellant Central States Water Resources, Inc. (CSWR).
CSW R file d suit against Undine Development, LLC , Undine Te xas, LLC ( collectively , Undine) , and Terra , alleging a breach

- of

- contract cla im again st Terra and certain declaratory

- j udgment claims against both Terra and Undine. Cent. States Water Res., Inc. v. Undine Dev., LLC , No. 02

- 22

- 00134

- CV, 2022 WL 2526944, at *1 ( Te x. App.

— Fort Worth July 7, 2022 , no pet. h.) (mem. op.). Undine later f iled a motion to dismiss the claims b rought against them pursuant to the Tex as Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). Id .; s ee Tex. C iv. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 27.001

– .011. Terra file d a plea to the ju r isd iction, asserting that the trial court lacked juris dic tion to hear certain of the declaratory

- judgment claims. Cent. States , 2022 WL 2526944, at *1.
The trial court ultimately granted Undine ’ s motion to dismiss, ordering that
CSWR ’ s c la ims against Undine w ere dismissed with prejudice and o rdering that
Un di ne “ shall receive their necessary and reasonable attorney ’ s fees in bringing the [m] otion upon submission of evidence of such fees to the [c ] ourt
. ” Id

. The trial court also granted Te rr a ’ s plea to the juri sdic tion, dismissing certain of the de claratory

jud gment claims but maintaini ng that the trial court “ has jurisdiction over [CSWR ’ s ] claim for breach of contract against [Terra], and

. . . that breach of contract claim
remain s to be li tigated in this case

. ” Id

.3 I n two separate notices of appeal, CSWR chal lenged the trial court ’ s grant of
Undine ’ s TCPA motio n to dismiss and grant of Terra ’ s plea to the jurisdiction. I d

. This appeal concerns CSWR ’ s challenge to the grant of Terra ’ s plea t o the jurisdiction. 1 Terra filed a motion to dismiss CS WR ’ s appe al, contending that our court lacks appellate jurisd iction over CSWR ’ s challenge to the trial court ’ s grant of
Terra ’ s plea to the jurisd iction. Instead of fil in g a re sponse to Ter ra ’ s motion to dismiss, CSWR fil e d its bri ef on the merit s. This court has a ppellate jurisdiction only over appeals from fi nal judgments and from interlocutory orders that the Texas Legislature has specified are immediately

a ppealable. Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp

. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2 0 01); se e, e.g. , Tex.
Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014. A judgment is final when it either (1) actually disposes of every pending claim and party or (2) clearly and unequivocally states t ha t it finally disposes of all claims and all parties. Lehmann , 3 9 S.W.3d a t 200, 205. Here, the
order CSWR i s appealing is not a final judgment because it does not actually dispose of every pending claim and party; to the contrary, the breach

- of

- contract cl aim remains against Terra, as does Undine’s request for their a t torney’ s fees on their
TCPA motion to dismi ss . Moreover , the order does not clearly and unequiv ocally
state that it finally disposes of all c laims and all parties

.

1 CSWR ’ s challenge to the trial court ’ s grant of Un dine ’ s TCPA mo t ion to dismiss is the subject of a separate a ppeal no longer pending in this co urt
. See Cent. States , 2022 WL 2526944

.4 The t ri al court ’ s order granting Terra ’ s plea to the jurisdiction does not dis pose of all c a uses of actio n and parties and is therefore interlocutory. See Jack B. Anglin C o. v. Tipps , 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992 ) (orig . proceeding)

. A stat ute authorizi ng appeals from inter locutory orders must be “ strictly constru ed because it is an exception t o the general rule that only a final jud gment is appealable. ” Shell Cortez Pipeline Co. v. Shores , 127 S.W.3d 286, 291 (Tex. Ap p.

— Fort Worth 2004, no pet.) (citing Tex. Dep ’ t of Transp . v. Sunse t Valley , 8 S.W.3d 727, 730 (Tex. App.

— Austin 1999, no pet.))

. A n order granting a plea to the jurisdiction i s an appealable interlocutory order if such p lea to the jurisdiction is made by a governmental unit.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 5 1.014(a)(8) (defining “ governmental un it ” in
accordance with Section 10 1 .001)

. As Terra is not a governmental unit , 2 we hold that

2 In its brief on the merits, CSWR ’ s “ Statement o n Ju risdiction ” asserts Ter ra should be considered a governmental unit for purposes of th is appe al because , based on the fact that Terra “ must a pply for approval to operate a wat er utility system , ” it is
a w ater c ontrol d istrict

. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Cod e Ann. § 101.001(3 ) ( B). “ A water control and improvement district may be created unde r and s ub ject to the authority

. . . of either Article III, Section 52, of the Texas Cons titution, or Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution

. ” Tex. Water Code Ann. § 51.011

. C onserva tion districts are considered governmental agen cies. Tex. Cons t. a rt. X VI, § 59(b). An extensive list of such legisla tively creat ed districts is contai ned in the Texas Special District Local Law s Code and includes water control an d improvement districts. S ee Tex. Spec

. Dist. Code Ann. tit. 6. But Terra is not among t h at lis t
. See id

. A nd a s reflec ted in the record , Terra is a “ domestic for

- profit corporation , ” not a water control d istrict

. CSWR ’ s “ Statement o n Jurisdiction ” also point s us to Univ ersity of the Incarnate Word v. Redus , which analy zes “ go ve rnmental un it ” unde r S e ction 101.001(3)(D )

. 518 S.W.3d 90 5 (Tex. 201 7 ) ; see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem

. Code Ann. § 101.001 (3)(D)

. In th at case, the court h eld tha t, because law enforcement is uniquely governmental, a5 the statutorily authorized exception in Section 51.014(a)(8 ) does not permit CSWR ’ s appeal of the trial court ’ s order granting Terra ’ s plea to the jurisdiction. See id

. Because the order CSWR att em p ts to appeal is neither a final judgment nor a n appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2 (f).
Per Curiam
Deliv ered: August 11, 2022

private university “ is a governmental un i t for purposes of law en forcement

. ” Univ. of the Incarnate Word , 518 S.W.3d at 911 (emph asis added)

. The court reasoned , although the university lack s public fu nding and is not considered a governmental entity under the Government Code , the university ’s ca mp us police dep artment i s “ part of a larger governmental syst em ” because the Legislature spec ifical ly “ authorized [ the university ] to enforce state and local la w using the same resource m unicipalities and the State use to enforce [ the ] law

. ” Id. a t 910, 91 1. H owe ver, t hi s case is dist inguishable . There is nothing in the record to indicate Terra receives p ublic funding , and the Legislature does not consider Terra a governmental entity under a ny Te xas code

. Moreover, Terra does no t “ have the same powers, priv il eg es, and imm unities ” as legislativel y created districts. See i d. at 911. And CSWR cites no auth o ri ty to support its contention that , by applying for approva l to operate a water utility s ystem , the Public Utility Commission ’ s governmental agency status i s co nferred to Terra.