Prototype MacHine Company v. Toledo P. Boulware, Individually and as Trustee Shaver Banderaranch, LLC as Successor-In-Interest to Dos Angeles, L.P. Zach & Kayla Davis D.M.C. Partners, Ltd. Willie Jo Dooley, L.P. Hayden G. Haby & Doris Y. Haby Hayden Haby, Jr. & Denette Haby Coates Melanie & John Jones in Their Capacity as Joint Representatives of the Ben Jones Sr. Est Ate McDaniel Farms, Inc. Jewel F. Robinson & 4-S Ranch Justin Burk D/B/A Burk Farms Robert E. Condry John Boerschig ( 2018 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-18-00441-CV
PROTOTYPE MACHINE COMPANY,
Appellant
v.
Toledo P. BOULWARE, Individually and as Trustee; Shaver Banderaranch, LLC, as Successor-
In-Interest to Dos Angeles, L.P.; Zach & Kayla Davis; D.M.C. Partners, Ltd.; Willie Jo Dooley,
L.P.; Hayden G. Haby & Doris Y. Haby; Hayden Haby Jr. & Denette Haby Coates; Melanie &
John Jones in their Capacity as Joint Representatives of the Ben Jones Sr. Estate; McDaniel
Farms, Inc.; Jewel F. Robinson & 4-S Ranch; Justin Burk D/B/A Burk Farms; Robert E. Condry;
John Boerschig, Tully Shahan; Kinney County Groundwater Conservation District; and Genell
Hobbs in Her Official Capacity as General Manager of the Kinney County Groundwater
Conservation District;
Appellees
From the 63rd Judicial District Court, Kinney County, Texas
Trial Court No. 3469-A
Honorable Enrique Fernandez, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 5, 2018
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
After Appellant filed its brief, Appellees moved this court to dismiss this appeal for want
of jurisdiction. Appellees assert that when the trial court severed Appellant’s claims, Appellees’
claims for attorney’s fees and costs of court against Appellant were transferred into the severed
04-18-00441-CV
cause and are still live claims. Appellees insist the trial court has not rendered a final judgment in
the severed cause and this appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
After reviewing the record, we ordered Prototype Machine Company to show cause in
writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the appellate
record does not contain a final judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.,
39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (noting that generally “an appeal may be taken only from a final
judgment”).
In Appellant’s response, it argues the merits of the trial court’s severance order but does
not assert that the trial court has signed a final judgment that disposes of all parties and all claims.
Appellant complains that the attorney’s fees claims “were not properly severable from the main
cause,” but notes that the attorney’s fees have not been determined by a final judgment.
Generally, “an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. A judgment is final for
purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record, except as necessary
to carry out the decree.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). An order
that does not dispose of all remaining parties and claims, including attorney’s fees, is not a final
judgment. See Farm Bureau County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rogers, 455 S.W.3d 161, 164 (Tex. 2015).
Appellant’s response effectively concedes that the appellate record does not contain a final
judgment, and Appellant failed to show how this court’s jurisdiction has been invoked.
We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); Lehmann, 39
S.W.3d at 195. Costs of court for this appeal are taxed against Appellant.
PER CURIAM
-2-