Court Opinion

ID: 9898789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-15 07:09:50.228792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:08.781456
License: Public Domain

DISMISS and Opinion Filed November 10, 2023

                                    S  In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                No. 05-23-00568-CV

                        LUKE KAITHACKAL, Appellant
                                   V.
                          MARY KAY, INC., Appellee

                On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court
                             Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-13790

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION
          Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein
                           Opinion by Chief Justice Burns
      In the notice of appeal, appellant states he is appealing from the trial court’s

March 10, 2023 final judgment “that apparently granted Defendant’s Traditional

and No-Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment.” Because the trial court did

not specify in its order whether it was granting or denying the defendant’s motions

for summary judgment, we ordered the trial court to sign an order clarifying its

ruling.   On July 27, 2023, the trial court signed an amended order denying

appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Because the amended order denied

appellee’s motion for summary judgment and it appeared appellant’s claims
remain pending, we questioned our jurisdiction over the appeal and directed the

parties to file letter briefs. See Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195

(Tex. 2001) (generally, appeal may only be taken from final judgment that

disposes of all parties and claims).

      In his letter brief, appellant agrees we lack jurisdiction unless it is first

necessary for the trial court to vacate the March order. Because that order did not

dispose of any claims, the trial court had plenary power to sign the amended order

and vacatur is unnecessary.

      Because no final judgment has been rendered, we dismiss the appeal for

want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

                                              /Robert D. Burns, III/
                                              ROBERT D. BURNS, III
                                              CHIEF JUSTICE
230568F.P05

                                        –2–
                               S
                         Court of Appeals
                  Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                              JUDGMENT

LUKE KAITHACKAL, Appellant                 On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial
                                           District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-23-00568-CV      V.                 Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-13790.
                                           Opinion delivered by Chief Justice
MARY KAY, INC., Appellee                   Burns. Justices Molberg and Goldstein
                                           participating.

    In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is
DISMISSED.

      It is ORDERED that appellee MARY KAY, INC. recover its costs of this
appeal from appellant LUKE KAITHACKAL.

Judgment entered November 10, 2023

                                     –3–