Court Opinion

ID: 9378697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-13 09:06:12.720198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:38.857105
License: Public Domain

In the
                   Court of Appeals
           Second Appellate District of Texas
                    at Fort Worth
                ___________________________
                     No. 02-22-00483-CV
                ___________________________

                 PAULA WOODARD, Appellant

                                V.

PHOI D. TU, GRANDLUX NAIL SALON INCORPORATED, AND PHILBERT
                     NYUGEN, Appellees

              On Appeal from the 431st District Court
                     Denton County, Texas
                  Trial Court No. 22-5677-431

              Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.
                Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant Paula Woodard attempts to appeal the trial court’s October 27, 2022

amended order granting Appellees Phoi D. Tu, Grandlux Nail Salon Incorporated,

and Philbert Nyugen’s motion to dismiss and awarding Appellees $6,912.50 in

attorney’s fees pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a. The order expressly

disposes of some claims but clearly states that Woodard’s claims for negligence,

assault, and breach of contract remain to be litigated.

      We may consider appeals only from final judgments or from interlocutory

orders made immediately appealable by statute. Bonsmara Nat. Beef Co. v. Hart of Tex.

Cattle Feeders, LLC, 603 S.W.3d 385, 390 (Tex. 2020). When, as here, a judgment is

rendered without a conventional trial on the merits, the judgment “is not final unless

(1) it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or (2) it clearly and

unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and parties” even though the

statement was included in error and the order “should have been interlocutory.” In re

Guardianship of Jones, 629 S.W.3d 921, 924 (Tex. 2021); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39

S.W.3d 191, 200, 205 (Tex. 2001). The trial court’s October 27, 2022 order does

neither; it does just the opposite by expressly stating that it is interlocutory and

identifying the claims remaining to be litigated. Additionally, interlocutory orders

granting a Rule 91a motion to dismiss are not appealable. Hollis v. ProPath Assocs.,

PLLC, No. 02-19-00167-CV, 2019 WL 3024472, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July

11, 2019, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); see DRC Constr. v. Pickle, No. 01-20-00576-

                                            2
CV, 2022 WL 479918, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 17, 2022, no pet.)

(per curiam) (mem. op.) (“No statutory or other authority allows for an interlocutory

appeal from an order that grants a Rule 91a motion to dismiss but does not dispose of

all pending claims.”).

       We notified Woodard that we questioned our jurisdiction over this appeal

because the order does not appear to be a final judgment or an appealable

interlocutory order. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. We informed her that this appeal could

be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless she filed a response showing grounds for

continuing the appeal by December 19, 2022. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. We received a

response from Woodard almost two months later, but it did not address our

jurisdictional question.

       Because the order from which Woodard attempts to appeal is not a final

judgment or an appealable interlocutory order,1 we dismiss this appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

                                                      Per Curiam

Delivered: March 9, 2023

       1
        While the award of attorney’s fees is ordered to be paid while the case is still
pending in the trial court, that does not appear to make the order final or appealable.
See Shah v. Maple Energy Holdings, LLC, No. 08-22-00133-CV, 2022 WL 3367756, at *1
(Tex. App.—El Paso Aug. 16, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“[N]o statute permits an
interlocutory appeal of orders . . . awarding attorney fees under Rule 91a . . . .”).

                                              3