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 RAJ ANI 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, Justi ce Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart Opinion by Chief Justice Wright This appeal follows the trial court’s or der 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 br ought against it by Inayatali Rajani and The Rajani Group (collectively, Raja ni), but did not address GQ’s c ounterclaims against Rajani. Asserting we lack jurisdiction over the appeal b ecause the summary judgme nt 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, th at is, from a judgment that dis poses 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 langua ge 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 whe n, 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 actua lly disposes of all claims and parties then before the court, regardless of its language,” or (2) “it st ates with unmistakable cl arity 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 Traditiona l and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment. After considering the pleadi ngs, affidavit and arguments of counsel, the Court finds that the motion should be GRANTED , and also hereby SUSTAINS Defendants’ objections to Plainti ff’[s] Summary Judgment Evidence. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERE D, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that ALL Plaintiffs’ causes of action are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. All other and further re lief 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 th at was set for February 16, 2016, indicating the judgment was in fact final. A judgment issued on a summary judg ment motion is final, however, only when “it actually disposes of all claims a nd 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 “unm istakable clarity” that it is final as to all claims and parties. Accordingly, it is not final and appealable. See id. ; Braeswood Harbor Partners & Prop. Owne rs v. Harris Cty. Appraisal Dist. , 69 S.W.3d 251,–3– 252 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pe t.) (concluding order granting summary judgment bearing title “Final Judgment” and stati ng “[a]ny and all other reli ef not granted herein is denied[,]” not final because it disposed of cl aims 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-a ppeal stating it intended to appeal the tr ial court’s order granting partial summary judgment if its motion to dismiss was denied. On the record before us, the noti ce of cross-appeal, filed five weeks after Rajani’s notice of a ppeal and two months after the summary judgment order, appears untimely. See T EX

. R. A PP

. 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.