Th e or de r a lso tr ans fe rs a pp e lla nt’ s c la im s again st M a tt A rm str on g and Va n F os te r t o 1 Hutchinson County . Howeve r, in her notice of appeal, appellant states only that she wishes to appe al from the dismissal order
. 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00746- CV

Be tty A nn N e wby, A ppe lla nt

v. JudyF lan de r s, M e r yle Bar ne tt , J e ff Bra in, Cha r le s G ill ing ham , P e te Loft is,

Tom Edmonds, Chris Cof fman, David Willard, H enry Veac h, and Larry Byrd, Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 353RD JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. GN401552 , HO NORAB LE PATRI CK O . KEEL, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
The trial c ourt signe d its order dismissing appe llant’s claims ag ainst the above n amed appellee s (t h e “B o rg er D efe ndants”) on Aug ust 26, 2004. Appellant filed a motion to have her 1 claims ag ainst the Bor g er D efe ndants reinstate d on September 29 a nd filed her

notice of a

ppeal f rom the orde r on N o v em b er 2 4 , 2004. Havingcar efully revie wed the r ecor d, including a ll orders of dismiss al and a

ppellant’s noti ce of nonsuit ag ainst sever al def endants, it appe ars that the Aug ust 26
or de r i s n ot a

fi na l and a pp e a la ble or de r b e c a

us e a pp e l l a nt ’ s c la ims a g a ins t se ve ra l de fe nd ants re ma in alive in the trial c ourt. Specifica l ly , appellant named as de fenda nts J ack Y oung , L arr

y Foster ,Appe l l an t referr ed to Coleman as a defe ndant in a September 29 motion to reinstate the 2 B or g e r D e fe nd ants , b ut i t is no t c le ar whe the r s he pr op e rl y name d h im a s a

de fe nd ant. Biscoe is na

med as a defe ndant in an orde r sig ned on May 14, 2004, sever ing a

ppellant’s 3 c la ims a g a ins t nume ro us de fe nd ants (r e fe rr e d to in th e or de r a s th e “ Tr avis County De fe nd ants ” ) i nto tr ia l c ourt c a us e numbe r G

N4 01 55 2. Ag a in, it is no t c le ar wh e the r a pp e lla nt p ro pe rl y

name d h im a s a de fe nd ant. We further

note that it doe s not appea r that the c laims ag ainst Armstrongand F oster, which 4 wer e transfe rre d to H utchinson County by the same order from which appellant seeks to a ppeal now, w e r e s e v e r e d

i n t o a n e w c a u s e s e p ar a t e f

r o mth e c l a i m s r e m a i n i n g i nT r av i s C o un ty. 2 Kenne th Coleman, and Sam B iscoe, and those putative de fenda nts have not bee n d i s m issed or 2 3 nonsuited from the c ause. Nor ha s appellant soug ht and obtained a n order sever ing the dismiss al 4 of the B org er D efe ndants from the e x isting ca use. B a se d o n o ur

e xami natio n of the re c or d, it ap pe ars that cla ims are y e t pe nd inga g a ins t
se ve ra l de fe nd ants , and thu s the or de r dis mis sin g a pp e lla nt’ s c la ims a g a ins t th e B or g e r D e fe nd ants is not a final order

from which a

ppeal may

be take n. Se e Pa rk Plac e Ho sp . v . E sta te of M

ilo , 909 S.W .2d 508, 510 (Tex. 1995) (“ All parties and a ll issues before the trial cour t must be disposed of befor e a summar

y judgme nt be comes final and appea lable.”)
. We theref ore dismiss the appea l for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pury ear Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: F ebrua

ry 17, 2005