Shawn Young v. Luxury Direct Limited Company ( 2022 )

Opinion issued January 20, 2022
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-20-00658-CV
———————————
SHAWN YOUNG, Appellant
V.
LUXURY DIRECT LIMITED COMPANY, Appellee
On Appeal from the 190th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2019-89787
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Shawn Young, attempts to appeal the trial court’s June 29, 2020
order granting partial summary judgment in favor of appellee, Luxury Direct
Limited Company.
On October 7, 2021, appellant filed a brief, styled Shawn Young v. Luxury
Direct Limited Company, raising two issues: (1) the trial court abused its discretion
in denying his motion to defer a ruling on summary judgment and for continuance
and (2) the trial court abused its discretion not affording appellant adequate time to
conduct discovery. On November 8, 2021, appellee filed a motion to strike
appellant’s brief because appellee contends that appellant is attempting to appeal
from the trial court’s June 29, 2020 order granting partial summary judgment in
favor of appellee and such order is not a final judgment because counterclaims
remain pending below. Appellant did not respond to appellee’s motion to strike.
The clerk’s record reflects that on June 28, 2020, appellant filed a first
amended answer and counterclaims against appellee. On June 29, 2020, the trial
court granted a partial motion for summary judgment in favor of appellee, but no
ruling on appellant’s counterclaims appear in the record. On December 7, 2021,
we notified appellant that we intended to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction
unless he could show that the trial court resolved appellant’s counterclaims.
Appellant did not respond.
Generally, appellate courts only have jurisdiction over appeals from final
judgments. See Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001);
N.E. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966). To be final, a
judgment must dispose of all issues and parties in a case. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d at
2
895. A summary judgment order is final for purposes of appeal only if it either
“actually disposes of all claims and parties then before the court . . . or it states
with unmistakable clarity that it is a final judgment as to all claims and all parties.”
Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 192–93; see N.Y. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 799
S.W.2d 677, 678–79 (Tex. 1990) (“In the absence of a special statute making an
interlocutory order appealable, a judgment must dispose of all issues and parties in
the case, including those presented by counterclaim or cross action, to be final and
appealable.”).
Because appellant’s counterclaims have not been finally disposed of and
remain pending and the trial court’s order does not state that it is a final judgment
as to all claims and all parties, we agree with appellee that the trial court has not
rendered a final judgment in trial court cause number 2019-89787. See Palavan v.
McCulley, Boulevard Realty LLC, and TBW Dev., LLC, No. 01-14-00604-CV,
2015 WL 1544520, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 2, 2015, no pet.)
(concluding that court lacked jurisdiction because counterclaims remained
pending).
Accordingly, we dismiss appellant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction and for
failing to respond to our notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c). We overrule any
pending motions as moot.
3
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly and Landau.
4