Motion granted, Appeal dismissed, and Memorandum Opinion filed March 28, 

2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-24-00164-CV

CITY OF HOUSTON AND HOUSTON AIRPORT SYSTEM, Appellants

V.

CHRISTOPHER GRINER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 11th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-10130

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted interlocutory appeal associated with (1) a plea to the 

jurisdiction and (2) a motion for summary judgment and severance, both based on

governmental immunity.

1 The notice of appeal filed March 5, 2024 contended the 

1 Although the motions are styled as if they are solely brought on behalf of appellant City 

of Houston, the notice of appeal contents those motions were jointly brought by the City of 

Houston and appellant Houston Airport System. While it appears that the Houston Airport System 

is a city department and not an independent governmental entity, we need not decide the status of 
2

trial court “entered” an order denying those motions on March 5, 2024. See Tex. 

Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(8) (permitting appeals “from an 

interlocutory order of a district court” that “grants or denies a plea to the jurisdiction 

by a governmental unit”); Harris Cnty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 638 (Tex. 2004) 

(“If the trial court denies the governmental entity’s claim of no jurisdiction, whether 

it has been asserted by a plea to the jurisdiction, a motion for summary judgment, or 

otherwise, the Legislature has provided that an interlocutory appeal may be brought.

See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014[.]”). However, the clerk’s record does 

not contain any signed order denying either motion. Appellee Christopher Griner 

has filed a motion to dismiss the interlocutory appeal based on the lack of a signed 

order.

Appellant City of Houston has filed a response contending the trial court 

implicitly denied at least one of the jurisdictional motions because the trial court 

called the case for trial while leaving the motions pending. See Thomas v. Long, 207 

S.W.3d 334 (Tex. 2006). In Thomas, although the trial court did not expressly deny

the motion for summary judgment that challenged the trial court’s subject-matter 

jurisdiction, the Texas Supreme Court concluded there had been an implicit ruling 

on the jurisdictional challenge when the trial court ruled on the merits of that claim.

Id. at 339-40. In reaching this conclusion, the Texas Supreme Court held that “a trial 

court that rules on the merits of an issue without explicitly rejecting an asserted 

jurisdictional attack has implicitly denied the jurisdictional challenge.” Id.

This appeal is distinguishable from Thomas. The appellate record does not 

reflect any ruling on the merits of Griner’s claims after the filing of the City’s 

motions challenging subject-matter jurisdiction. The most that can be said is that the 

the Houston Airport System in this order.
3

trial court was allowing a jury trial to proceed while the motions were pending. 

We grant appellee’s motion and dismiss this interlocutory appeal for want of 

subject-matter jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Spain, and Hassan.