Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 5, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-18-00629-CV

MARTIN NORRIS, Appellant

V.

DARYL OSTRANDER AND/OR 1406 ROCK CLIFF ROAD, AUSTIN, 

TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Travis County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C-1-CV-17-006563

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Martin Norris filed suit against appellee Daryl Ostrander and/or

1406 Rock Cliff Road, Austin, Texas (Ostrander) for electrical work performed on 

Ostrander’s home. The trial court granted two motions for partial summary 

judgment Ostrander filed challenging Norris’s causes of action. Ostrander then 

non-suited his counterclaims against Norris. Ostrander did not request, nor did the 

trial court sign, an order of non-suit. Norris then filed an amended petition. In that 
2

motion Norris alleged two new causes of action, a suit on a sworn account and 

breach of contract. Norris also filed a motion for leave to file his amended petition 

and a motion for new trial. Norris set the motion for new trial for hearing and the 

trial court denied the motion the same day as the hearing. Norris subsequently

filed this appeal.

1

 As explained below, we conclude the record establishes that we 

lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

While there were two partial summary judgments signed by the trial court 

that disposed of all of Norris’s causes of action at the time the second partial 

summary judgment order was signed, Ostrander had previously filed a 

counterclaim against Norris. While Ostrander did file a notice of non-suit the same 

day that the trial court signed the second partial summary judgment order, the 

appellate record does not reflect that the trial court signed an order of nonsuit. 

This is a requirement for this court to acquire jurisdiction even if the partial 

summary judgments disposed of all of Norris’s claims. See Park Place Hospital v. 

Estate of Milo, 909 S.W.2d 508, 510 (Tex. 1995) (holding that an order of nonsuit 

dismissing the parties is needed to make a summary judgment final even when the 

plaintiff nonsuits all claims against the party); CMR Construction & Roofing of 

Austin, Inc. v. Elliot, No. 06-19-00006-CV, 2019 WL 2273871 at *2, n.2 (Tex. 

App.—Texarkana May 29, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Elliot’s cited cases deal 

with the question of whether a summary judgment is final when the party nonsuits 

claims but the trial court fails to enter an order of nonsuit.”); Twin Creeks Golf 

Group, L.P. v. Sunset Ridge Owners Association, Inc., No. 03-15-00763-CV, 2016 

1 The Texas Supreme Court ordered the Third Court of Appeals to transfer this case to 

our court. Under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, “the court of appeals to which the 

case is transferred must decide the case in accordance with the precedent of the transferor court

under principles of stare decisis if the transferee court’s decision otherwise would have been 

inconsistent with the precedent of the transferor court.” Tex. R. App. P. 41.3.
3

WL 368636, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 26, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“We 

also conclude that Sunset Ridge’s amendment of its petition to remove its pending 

monopoly claim after the trial court already had signed the partial summary 

judgment order did not make the order final and appealable; a further order from 

the trial court was required.”). So, the trial court still had plenary power after 

Ostrander filed his notice of non-suit. See Wasserberg v. RES-TX One, LLC, No. 

14-13-00674-CV, 2014 WL 6922545, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 

9, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (“As we have explained above, however, the 

nonsuit did not make the partial summary judgment final, so the trial court still had

plenary power at the time it signed the judgment nunc pro tunc. Thus, the trial 

court still had the power to make its judgment final, regardless of the title it 

attached to the order doing so.”).

After Ostrander filed his notice of nonsuit, Norris filed an amended petition 

adding two new causes of action. While Norris did file a motion for leave to file 

his amended petition, which was never signed by the trial court, there is nothing in 

the appellate record establishing that Norris required the trial court’s permission to 

file an amended petition. Therefore, in addition to the lack of an order of nonsuit, 

the appellate record indicates there are two unresolved claims. We therefore must 

dismiss this case because we lack jurisdiction.

Generally, this court has civil appellate jurisdiction over final judgments or 

interlocutory orders specifically authorized as appealable by statute. See Lehmann 

v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 

Ann. § 51.014. On March 19, 2020 notification was transmitted to the parties of 

this court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless Norris

filed a response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal on or before 

April 9, 2020. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). No response has been filed.
4

We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

/s/ Jerry Zimmerer

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.