Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00387-CV

Comfort D. ROBERTS,

Appellant

v.

BEST & SPRUILL, Allison Spruill, Delta Best, Daryl Quijano, and Kenneth Welch,

Appellees

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-03206

Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 6, 2014

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

Appellant Comfort D. Roberts filed suit against River City Care Center, Lloyd Douglas 

Enterprises, Lloyd Douglas, Steve Robinson, Best & Spruill, Allison Spruill, Delta Best, Daryl 

Quijano, Kenneth Welch, and U.S. Legal Service. On April 4, 2014, Best & Spruill, Allison 

Spruill, Delta Best, Daryl Quijano, and Kenneth Welch filed a motion for sanctions in which they 

sought a dismissal of appellant’s claims against them based on their contention that appellant’s 

suit was frivolous and filed solely for the purpose of harassment. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 13; TEX.
04-14-00387-CV

CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 10.001, et seq. (West 2002). On April 6, 2014, appellant filed a 

notice of nonsuit as to his “entire case.” 

On April 10, 2014, the trial court granted the motion filed by Best & Spruill, Allison 

Spruill, Delta Best, Daryl Quijano, and Kenneth Welch, and dismissed appellant’s claims against 

these individuals and entities. The order does not include any severance language with regard to 

the remaining defendants — River City Care Center, Lloyd Douglas Enterprises, Lloyd Douglas, 

Steve Robinson, and U.S. Legal Service — or any Mother Hubbard language. Moreover, the 

clerk’s record does not contain an order granting the nonsuit or otherwise disposing of appellant’s 

claims against River City Care Center, Lloyd Douglas Enterprises, Inc., Lloyd Douglas, Steve 

Robinson, or U.S. Legal Service. These defendants did not join in the motion filed by Best & 

Spruill, Allison Spruill, Delta Best, Daryl Quijano, and Kenneth Welch, and they are not 

mentioned in the trial court’s April 10, 2014 order of dismissal. 

On May 30, 2014, appellant Roberts filed his notice of appeal from the trial court’s order 

of dismissal. He subsequently amended his notice of appeal to include the trial court’s denial of 

his motion to reconsider the dismissal. In the notices of appeal, appellant references the nonsuit, 

contending the nonsuit precluded the order of dismissal. 

In Park Place Hosp. v. Estate of Milo, the supreme court held the appellate timetables were 

not triggered until a signed, written order was rendered dismissing a nonsuited defendant. 909 

S.W.2d 508, 510 (Tex. 1995). As noted above, no order granting the nonsuit or dismissing all of 

the nonsuited defendants was signed, and the trial court’s order of dismissal did not contain a 

Mother Hubbard clause or other finality language. Until the trial court renders an order of 

dismissal or a severance as to all of the nonsuited defendants, there is no final and appealable 

judgment. See id. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgment. Lehmann v. Har-

- 2 -
04-14-00387-CV

Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A judgment is final for purposes of appeal when it 

disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record. Id. 

Although Roberts nonsuited all of the defendants, it appears the trial court never rendered

an order granting the nonsuit, an order of dismissal, or order of severance as to defendants River 

City Care Center, Lloyd Douglas Enterprises, Inc., Lloyd Douglas, Steve Robinson, or U.S. Legal 

Service. Thus, it seems there is no final and appealable judgment in this matter. See id. 

Accordingly, we ordered appellant to show cause why this case should not be dismissed 

for want of jurisdiction. We advised appellant that if he failed to satisfactorily respond within the 

time provided, the appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). 

On July 30, 2014, appellant filed a response to our order. In the response, appellant 

contends the appeal should not be dismissed because he was denied the right to due process based 

on the trial court’s decision to grant the motion for sanctions, i.e., the motion to dismiss, after he 

filed his notice of nonsuit and without notice to him. Appellant does not, however, address the 

specific jurisdictional issue raised in our show cause order, i.e., the failure of the record to establish 

disposal of his claims against all parties sued. Accordingly, because appellant has failed to 

establish there is a final judgment — a judgment or order disposing of all the parties initially sued 

— we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

- 3 -