IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-12-00126-CV

ULLJA KUNTZE,

Appellant

v.

MICHELLE HALL, LYDIA MUELL, DEBORAH PIERCE, 

ELIZABETH WAIT, MATHILDA O'KELLEY, HOLLY

MCCONNELL, HEIDI BOND, AMBER AYISHA VAN 

METER, DARLEEN MICHAEL-BAKER, SANDRA 

COWAN, KANDICE CORDINGLY-SEEBER, SUE 

HARMON-KING, TOM KIES, DEBORAH KAUZLARICH,

COREY HARPER, TRACI CRABTREE, KALERA STRATTON, 

JOANNE SOROKA, DESA GILMORE, MELISSA WILLETTE, 

SALLY MARIE SPITZNAGEL, RENEE CATHERINE WIGGINS, 

CHRISTINE A. KLEIN, LAURIE WHITNEY, DONNA DARICE 

FELKNER, BRENDA LEE SCATA, KATHLEEN URATO, LISA 

LAVELLE NEW, NANCY ROBINSON, AND VIRGINIA HAMPTONSCHMIDT,

Appellees

From the 170th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-2279-4

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this appeal, appellant, Ullja Kuntze, challenges eight summary judgments 

entered by the trial court. Appellant’s appeal stems from her June 25, 2010 original 
Kuntze v. Hall Page 2

petition in which she asserted various causes of action for tortious interference with 

existing and prospective contracts and business disparagement against thirty 

defendants—Michelle Hall, Corri Harper, Lydia Workman Muell, Mathilda O’Kelley, 

Sandra Cowan, Elizabeth Wait, Deborah Pierce, Holly McConnell, Heidi Kay Bond, 

Amber Aiysha Van Meter, Darleen Rae Michael-Baker, Kandice Cordingley-Seeber, Sue 

Harmon-King, Traci Crabtree, Deborah Kauzlarich, Tom Kies, Kalera Stratton, Joanne 

Soroka, Desa Gilmore, Melissa Willette, Sally Marie Spitznagel, Renee Catherine 

Wiggins, Christine A. Klein, Laurie Whitney, Donna Darice Felkner, Brenda Lee Scata, 

Kathleen Urato, Lisa Lavelle New, Nancy Robinson, and Virginia Hampton-Schmidt.

On March 6, 2012, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal challenging summary 

judgments granted in favor of sixteen of the thirty originally-named defendants—

O’Kelley, Cowan, McConnell, Bond, Van Meter, Michael-Baker, Cordingley-Seeber, 

Harmon-King, Crabtree, Kauzlarich, Gilmore, Wiggins, Klein, Felkner, Scata, and New. 

This appeal was docketed and assigned the following appellate cause number: 10-12-

00087-CV.

Meanwhile, on April 23, 2012, appellant filed another pro se notice of appeal, 

challenging the trial court’s summary judgments in favor of Muell, Hall, Willette, Wait, 

Spitznagel, Pierce, Kies, and Soroka.1 This appeal was docketed and assigned the 

following appellate cause number: 10-12-00126-CV. 

Later, on May 3, 2012, appellant amended her pro se notice of appeal in appellate 

 

1 At the time Kuntze filed her notices of appeal, it was clear that she wished to challenge the trial 

court’s summary judgments pertaining to twenty-four of the original thirty named defendants, but the 

status of the remaining six defendants—Robinson, Urato, Whitney, Stratton, Harper, and HamptonSchmidt—was unclear. The trial court’s May 3, 2012 “Final Judgment” addressed the six remaining 

defendants.
Kuntze v. Hall Page 3

cause number 10-12-00087-CV to indicate that she wished to appeal a “Final Judgment” 

entered by the trial court. The “Final Judgment,” which was signed by the trial court on 

May 3, 2012, stated that: (1) appellant’s claims against Robinson, Urato, and Whitney 

were dismissed on March 30, 2011; (2) appellant’s claims against Stratton were 

dismissed on June 16, 2011; (3) appellant’s claims against Harper were dismissed on 

June 28, 2011; (4) appellant’s claims against Hampton-Schmidt were dismissed on 

February 9, 2012; (5) it granted summary judgment in favor of Bond, Cordingley-Seeber, 

Cowan, Crabtree, Felkner, Gilmore, Kauzlarich, Harmon-King, Klein, McConnell, 

Michael-Baker, New, O’Kelley, Scata, Van Meter, and Wiggins on February 24, 2012; 

and (6) it granted summary judgment in favor of Hall, Kies, Muell, Pierce, Soroka, 

Spitznagel, Wait, and Willette on March 28, 2012. Based on our review, the trial court’s 

May 3, 2012 “Final Judgment” disposed of all parties and claims and, thus, is final and 

appealable. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).

An appeal may be taken only from a final judgment and certain interlocutory 

orders identified by statute. Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. There is no presumption of 

finality for summary-judgment orders. See Ford v. Exxon Mobil Chem. Co., 235 S.W.3d 

615, 617 (Tex. 2007) (citing Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205-06). A trial court’s order is not 

final where the record demonstrates the existence of claims or parties not mentioned in 

the order. Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 206. 

In this appeal, appellant seeks to challenge only eight of the trial court’s 

summary judgments, and none of those summary judgments dispose of all parties and 

claims associated with appellant’s June 25, 2010 original petition. Because the summary 

judgments that appellant complains about in this appeal do not dispose of all parties 
Kuntze v. Hall Page 4

and claims, we cannot say that these orders are final and appealable. See Lehmann, 39 

S.W.3d at 195, 206. Furthermore, we note that appellant’s appeal in this appellate cause 

number appears to have been rendered moot by appellant’s amending of her notice of 

appeal in appellate cause number 10-12-00087-CV to challenge the trial court’s “Final 

Judgment,” which disposed of all parties and claims. See Camarena v. Tex. Employment 

Comm’n, 754 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Tex. 1988) (“Generally, a case is determined to be moot 

‘when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable 

interest in the outcome.’” (quoting Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481, 102 S. Ct. 1181, 

1183, 71 L. Ed. 2d 353 (1982) (internal citations omitted))); see also Williams v. Lara, 52 

S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001) (holding that a justiciable controversy between the parties 

must exist at every stage of the legal proceedings, including the appeal, or the case is 

moot). Therefore, based on the foregoing, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over 

this matter. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. Accordingly, we dismiss appellant’s appeal 

in this appellate cause number for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed May 23, 2012

[CV06]