Court Opinion

ID: 6338688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-05-09 07:17:55.32439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:49:08.619522
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-22-00064-CV

                              COURT OF APPEALS

                    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

CLAUDIA ISLEM DECIGA,                                                          Appellant,

                                              v.

PAVECON LTD., CO.                                   Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
             On appeal from the 103rd District Court
                  of Cameron County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION
                Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Silva
                 Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

       Appellant Claudia Islem Deciga attempted to appeal the trial court’s order granting

Pavecon Ltd., Co.’s motion for summary judgment in this case. Upon review of the

documents before the Court, it appeared that the order from which this appeal was taken

was not a final appealable order. “[A]n order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal

unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and

unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and parties.” Lehmann v. Har-
Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001). Pavecon Public Works GP LLC, Pavecon

LTD, Do. and H-E-B, LP are each listed as defendants in the underlying cause, but the

trial court’s order only granted summary judgment and dismissed Pavecon Public Works

GP LLC and Pavecon Ltd., Co. Appellant filed responses to the defect notice, but the

responses did not cure the defect; the jurisdictional defect of a no final, appealable order

remains.

       Absent an appealable interlocutory order or final judgment, this Court has no

jurisdiction over this appeal. See Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 S.W.3d 316, 319 n. 1 (Tex.

2007); Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. The Court, having considered the documents on file,

both appellant and appellee’s responses and replies to the defect notice, and appellant’s

failure to correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Accordingly, the appeal is

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See id. R. 42.3(a),(c).

                                                         NORA L. LONGORIA
                                                         Justice

Delivered and filed on the
5th day of May, 2022.

                                              2