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, Texa s (Ostrander ) f or electrical work performed on Ostrander ’ s hom e. T he trial court granted two motions for partial summary judgment Ostrander filed challengi ng Norris ’ s causes of action. Ostrander then

non
- suited his counter claims against Norris

. Ostrander did not reques t, nor did the trial court sign , a n order of non

- suit

. No rris then filed an amended petition

. I n that2

mot ion Norris alleged two new cause s of action , a suit on a sworn account and breach of co ntract

. Norris als o filed a motion for leave to file his amended petit ion

a nd a motion for new trial

. Norris set the motion for new trial for hearing and the trial court d enied the motion the same day as the hearing

. Norris subsequently filed this appeal

. 1 As explained below , we conclude the record estab li shes that w e lack jurisdiction over this appeal.
W hile t here 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 pr ev iously filed a counterclaim against N orris

. While Ostra nder 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 t hat the trial court signed an order of n on suit. This is a requirement for this court to acquire j urisdiction 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 dismi ss ing 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, 2 019, 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 As so ciation, Inc. , No. 03

- 15

- 00763

- CV, 2016

1 Th e Texas Supre me Court ord e red the Third Co urt o f Appeal s to transfer this case to
our cour t. Under t h e Texas Rules of Appellate Pro cedure, “t he cour t of appeals to which t he case i s transf

erred must decide the case in accordance with the precedent of the transferor co urt under principles of stare decisis if the transferee court ’ s decision othe rwise would have been inco nsistent with th e preceden t of th e transferor court.” Tex. R. A pp. P. 41 .3

.3

W L 368636, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Austin Jan. 26, 2016, no pet.) (m em. 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 s ummary judgment order did not make the orde r final and appealable; a further order from the trial court was required.”). So, the trial court still had plenary power a fter Ostrander fi led his notice of non

- suit. See Wasserberg v. RES

- TX One, LLC , No. 14

- 1 3

- 00674

- CV, 2014 WL 6922545, at *4 (Tex. Ap p.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 9, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.) ( “ A s we have explained a bove, however, the nonsuit did not make the partial summary judgment final, so the tr ial court still had plenary power at the time it signed the judgment nunc pro tunc. Thus, the trial court still had the po wer to make it s judgment final, regardless of the title it attached to the order doing so. ” ).
A fter Ostrander filed his notice of non suit , Norris filed an amended petition adding t wo new cause s of action

. While Norri s did fi le a motion for leave to file his amended p e t ition , 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 addit ion to the lack of an order of non suit, the appellat e record indicates there are two unresolved claims. We there fore must di s miss this case because we lack ju ris diction. Generally, this court has civil appellate jurisdiction over final judgme nts or inter locutory o rders specifically authorized as appealabl e 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 inten tion to di smiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless Norris filed a response demonstrating grounds for contin uing the appeal on or before April 9 , 2020. See Tex. R. App

. P . 42.3(a). No response has been filed

.4

We ther efore dismiss the appeal for w ant of juri sdiction.

/s/ Jerry Zimmerer Justice

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.