Court Opinion

ID: 9881520
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 10:08:37.817654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:16:07.096390
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                      NO. 03-23-00462-CV

                                   Gregory Royal, Appellant

                                                 v.

    MB Landscape Solutions, individually and jointly; Baldemar Arias, individually and
jointly; Unnamed MB Landscape Solutions’ Employee-Tortfeasor (TBD), individually and
   jointly; Unnamed MB Landscape Solutions’ Liability Insurer (TBD), individually and
   jointly; Bridge at Terracina, LLC, d/b/a Bridge at Terracina, individually and jointly;
  Unnamed Bridge at Terracina, LLC, d/b/a Bridge at Terracina Liability Insurer (TBD),
 individually and jointly; Apartment Management Professionals, individually and jointly;
       and Unnamed Apartment Management Professionals’ Liability Insurer (TBD),
                             individually and jointly, Appellees

              FROM THE 455TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
    NO. D-1-GN-22-002763, THE HONORABLE LAURIE EISERLOH, JUDGE PRESIDING

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Appellant Gregory Royal filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s “Final

Judgment (Summary Judgment Order) signed on May 1, 2023, as well as the Order Denying

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of July 3, 2023, [and] any other rulings subsumed

therein.” 1 Upon initial review, the Clerk of this Court sent Royal a letter informing him that this

Court appears to lack jurisdiction over the appeal because our jurisdiction is limited to appeals in

       1
          As we informed Royal, the only summary-judgment order in the clerk’s record filed
with this Court is an “Order Granting Apartment Management Professionals’ Motion for
Summary Judgment” that was signed by the trial court on May 3, 2023. The trial court’s “Order
Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration” of the order granting Apartment Management
Professionals’ summary-judgment motion was signed by the trial court on July 3, 2023.
which there exists a final or appealable judgment or order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code

§ 51.012; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (explaining that appeal

generally may only be taken from final judgment that disposes of all pending parties and claims

in record unless statute provides for interlocutory appeal). In this case, the trial court’s order

only disposes of Royal’s claims against one defendant, and an order granting summary judgment

in favor of only one of multiple defendants is not an appealable interlocutory order. Stary

v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998) (“Appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider

immediate appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides appellate

jurisdiction.”); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014 (specifically permitting appeal of

various interlocutory orders but not permitting appeal from grant of partial summary judgment).

The Clerk requested a response on or before September 25, 2023, informing this Court of any

basis that exists for jurisdiction. To date, no response has been filed.

               Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, we dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

                                               __________________________________________
                                               Gisela D. Triana, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Smith

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: September 29, 2023

                                                  2