Court Opinion

ID: 9837942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 17:09:12.681699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:12.248213
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00263-CV

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                    CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

JACQUELINE SIMS,                                                           Appellant,

                                            v.

H-E-B, LP,                                                                   Appellee.

                  On appeal from the 329th District Court
                       of Wharton County, Texas.

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

                  Before Justices Tijerina, Silva, and Peña
                  Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña

      This matter is before the Court on appellant’s opposed motion for extension of time

to file the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. On June 16, 2023, appellant,

Jacqueline Sims attempted to appeal the trial court’s order granting H-E-B, LP’s
no-evidence motion for summary judgment in this case. Upon review of the documents

before the Court, it appeared that the order from which this appeal was taken was not a

final appealable order. “[A]n order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it

actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally

states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39

S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001). H-E-B, LP and H.E.B., Inc. are each listed as defendants in

the underlying cause, but the trial court’s order only granted summary judgment and

dismissed H-E-B, LP. There are no documents before the Court which resolve claims

against defendant H.E.B., Inc.

       Furthermore, on July 28, 2023, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant of this

defect and that if the defect was not corrected within ten days, the appeal would be

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). Appellant failed to correct the defect and

instead filed a motion for extension of time to file the appellate record. The motion in no

way indicates the purpose of the delay is to establish jurisdiction. Additionally, the district

court clerk’s office confirmed with the Clerk of the Court that they did not have any

document demonstrating resolution of claims made against the remaining defendant,

H.E.B., Inc.

       Absent an appealable interlocutory order or final judgment, this Court has no

jurisdiction over this appeal. See Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 S.W.3d 316, 319 n. 1 (Tex.

2007); Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. The Court, having considered the documents on file

and appellant’s failure to correct the defect, is of the opinion that the appeal should be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Accordingly, the appeal is

                                              2
dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See id. R. 42.3(a), (c). Appellant’s motion for extension

of time to file the record is also dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

                                                                  L. ARON PEÑA JR.
                                                                  Justice

Delivered and filed on the
31st day of August, 2023.

                                               3