Court Opinion

ID: 9915739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-08 11:07:09.281105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:13:47.247721
License: Public Domain

In the
                    Court of Appeals
            Second Appellate District of Texas
                     at Fort Worth
                 ___________________________
                      No. 02-23-00422-CV
                 ___________________________

      KOMATSU FINANCIAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellant

                                 V.

MAMMOTH RENTAL AND SUPPLY, LLC; MATTHEW MAHONE; AND ORYX
            OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, Appellees

              On Appeal from the 153rd District Court
                      Tarrant County, Texas
                  Trial Court No. 153-329332-21

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

       Generally, this court has jurisdiction only over final judgments and

interlocutory orders from which an appeal is expressly authorized by statute. See Tex.

Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 51.012, 51.014(a); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39

S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Here, Appellant Komatsu Financial Limited Partnership

attempts to appeal from the trial court’s October 13, 2023 order denying its motion

for summary judgment. We notified the parties in our November 8, 2023 letter that

“[t]he court is concerned it may not have jurisdiction over this appeal from the trial

court’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support

Thereof, because it does not appear to be a final judgment or an appealable

interlocutory order.” We further stated that unless appellant or any party desiring to

continue the appeal filed with this court, on or before Tuesday, November 28, 2023, a

response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, this appeal could be dismissed

for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. We received no response.

       Because the order from which Appellant attempts to appeal is neither a final

judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Kaithackal v. Mary Kay, Inc., No. 05-23-

00568-CV, 2023 WL 7449948, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 10, 2023, no pet. h.)

(mem. op.) (dismissing attempted appeal from denial of motion for summary judgment).

                                                        Per Curiam

Delivered: January 4, 2024

                                             2