Dismissed and Opinion Filed April 26, 2016 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00245-CV 

INAYATALI RAJANI AND THE RAJANI GROUP, Appellants 

V. 

GQ ENTERPRISES CORPORATION, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-05188 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

 This appeal follows the trial court’s order granting partial summary judgment on GQ 

Enterprises Corporation’s traditional and no-evidence motion for summary judgment. GQ’s 

motion sought judgment on all of the claims brought against it by Inayatali Rajani and The 

Rajani Group (collectively, Rajani), but did not address GQ’s counterclaims against Rajani. 

Asserting we lack jurisdiction over the appeal because the summary judgment order is not final 

or otherwise appealable, GQ has filed a motion to dismiss. 

 Subject to mostly statutory exceptions not applicable here, an appeal may generally only 

be taken from a final judgment, that is, from a judgment that disposes of all pending parties and 

claims in the record. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Finality of a 
 –2– 

judgment is determined from both the language of the judgment and the record. Id. at 195. A 

judgment rendered after a conventional trial is presumed to be final and appealable. See id. at 

198-99. However, no presumptions exist when, as here, a judgment is rendered without a 

conventional trial. See id. at 199-200. This is so even if the judgment contains a statement that 

“all relief not granted is denied.” See id. at 203-04. A judgment rendered without a conventional 

trial is final and appealable if either (1) “it actually disposes of all claims and parties then before 

the court, regardless of its language,” or (2) “it states with unmistakable clarity that it is a final 

judgment as to all claims and all parties.” Id. at 192-93. 

 The judgment here recites as follows: 

On this the 25th day of January, 2016, came to be heard Defendant GQ 

Enterprises Corporation’s Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary 

Judgment. After considering the pleadings, affidavit and arguments of counsel, 

the Court finds that the motion should be GRANTED, and also hereby 

SUSTAINS Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’[s] Summary Judgment Evidence. 

 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 

ALL Plaintiffs’ causes of action are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. 

 All other and further relief is hereby denied. 

 

 Rajani asserts, in part, in response to GQ’s motion to dismiss, that the judgment is final 

and appealable because it denies “all other and further relief.” This language, however, is not 

dispositive. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 203-04. Rajani also notes the trial court “closed” the 

case and canceled a jury trial that was set for February 16, 2016, indicating the judgment was in 

fact final. A judgment issued on a summary judgment motion is final, however, only when “it 

actually disposes of all claims and parties then before the court” or “it states with unmistakable 

clarity that it is a final judgment as to all claims and all parties.” Id. at 192-93. The judgment 

here does not dispose of GQ’s counterclaims and does not state with “unmistakable clarity” that 

it is final as to all claims and parties. Accordingly, it is not final and appealable. See id.; 

Braeswood Harbor Partners & Prop. Owners v. Harris Cty. Appraisal Dist., 69 S.W.3d 251, 
 –3– 

252 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (concluding order granting summary 

judgment bearing title “Final Judgment” and stating “[a]ny and all other relief not granted herein 

is denied[,]” not final because it disposed of claims of only two of three plaintiffs). We grant 

GQ’s motion and dismiss the appeal.1

 

160245F.P05 

 

 1

 GQ filed a notice of “conditional” cross-appeal stating it intended to appeal the trial court’s order granting partial summary judgment if its 

motion to dismiss was denied. On the record before us, the notice of cross-appeal, filed five weeks after Rajani’s notice of appeal and two 

months after the summary judgment order, appears untimely. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. Our disposition of GQ’s motion, however, renders the 

timeliness of the cross-appeal irrelevant. 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –4– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

WAYNE A. RAND, Appellant 

No. 05-14-01577-CV V. 

DOROTHY DENNISE RAND, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-1306590. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Chief 

Justice Wright and Justice Brown 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

 We ORDER appellee Dorothy Dennise Rand recover her costs, if any, of this appeal 

from appellant Wayne A. Rand. 

Judgment entered April 26, 2016.