Court Opinion

ID: 9811478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:21:55.40465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:02.561166
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON REHEARING
In his motion for rehearing, Angel M. Vacca directs our attention to the Texas Supreme Court’s recent opinion in M.O. Dental Lab v. Rape, 139 S.W.3d 671 (Tex.2004). In that case, the trial court granted summary judgment to all but one of the defendants, Charlie Smith, who had not been served. Id. at 674. The plaintiff, however, had stated in her original petition “the location for service of Defendant Charlie Smith is unknown at this time, so no citation is requested.” Id. Based on this language, the Texas Supreme Court agreed that the record supported the conclusion that the plaintiff had not intended to pursue her claims against Smith. Therefore, the court agreed with the parties that the trial court’s order granting summary judgment was final for purposes of appeal. Id. at 674-75.
In the case now before this Court, Vacca did not state in his original petition that Jonathan R. Rayburn’s whereabouts were unknown or that service was unnecessary. Nor does the official record from the trial court suggest Vacca does not, at some later point, intend to pursue his claims against Rayburn. Accordingly, we find the facts and posture of this case to be distinguishable from the situation presented in M.O. Dental Lab. Accordingly, we hold the trial court’s judgment is not final, and we are without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Vacca’s appeal.
We overrule the motion for rehearing.