Court Opinion

ID: 9769054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:13:13.750973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:17.572791
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                     San Antonio, Texas
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                        No. 04-23-00537-CV

                                      Ray Adam BASALDUA,
                                            Appellant

                                                  v.

             SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM, Erika Nirenberg, and Ron Nirenberg,
                                  Appellees

                     From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                  Trial Court No. 2022-CI-13322
                            Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
                  Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
                  Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 23, 2023

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

           Appellant filed a notice of appeal on May 22, 2023. The clerk’s record shows that in the

underlying suit, appellant brought multiple claims against the San Antonio Water System

(“SAWS”), Erika Prosper Nirenberg, and Ronald Adrian Nirenberg. In response, SAWS filed a

plea to the jurisdiction. Although the trial court held a hearing on the matter, the clerk’s record
                                                                                                      04-23-00537-CV

does not contain an order ruling on the jurisdictional plea. 1 Nor does it contain a signed order

otherwise disposing of appellant’s claims against SAWS.

         Thereafter, the Nirenbergs filed a motion for no-evidence summary judgment, which the

trial court granted. The clerk’s record contains an order granting the no-evidence summary

judgment motion and disposing of appellant’s claims against the Nirenbergs.

         “Texas appellate courts have jurisdiction only over final orders or judgments unless a

statute permits an interlocutory appeal.” Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 S.W.3d 316, 319 n.1 (Tex.

2007). When, as here, there has not been a conventional trial on the merits, courts will deem a

judgment to be final if: (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 if it does not actually

do so. Patel v. Nations Renovations, LLC, 661 S.W.3d 151, 154 (Tex. 2023); see Lehmann v. Har-

Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d at 192-93 (Tex. 2001). The order granting no-evidence summary judgment

in favor of the Nirenbergs does not satisfy either of these requirements. See Patel, 661 S.W.3d at

155 (Tex. 2023) (stating that the inclusion of the clause “all relief not granted is denied” is not

enough, standing alone, to satisfy the clear-and-unequivocal standard).

         On July 18, 2023, we issued an order explaining that the clerk’s record in this appeal failed

to contain a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order. We further explained that an

interlocutory appeal was not permitted under the circumstances presented in this case. We ordered

appellant to show cause in writing no later than August 1, 2023, why this appeal should not be

1
 The clerk’s record contains docket notes filed on September 28, 2022, which state “Judge[’]s Notes Plea to the
Jurisdiction – granted.” These docket notes, which are unsigned, do not qualify as an order. See In re A.W., 384 S.W.3d
872, 873 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.) (“[A] judge’s notes are for his or her own convenience and form no
part of the record.”); see also In re S.L.M., No. 04-16-00456-CV, 2016 WL 4537664, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
Aug. 31, 2016, no pet.) (“[A] judge’s notes do not constitute an appealable order.”). The trial court clerk has informed
this court that no order on the plea to the jurisdiction was filed.

                                                         -2-
                                                                                     04-23-00537-CV

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant did not respond to our order. Accordingly, this appeal

is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a),(c).

                                                   PER CURIAM

                                                 -3-