Vicki Presley, as Next Friend of Shawn Davis v. Republic Energy Drilling, L.L.C. ( 2007 )

                                      COURT OF APPEALS

                                       SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                                   FORT WORTH

                                        NO. 2-06-441-CV  

VICKI PRESLEY, AS NEXT FRIEND

OF SHAWN DAVIS, DECEASED                                              APPELLANT

                                                   V.

REPUBLIC ENERGY DRILLING, L.L.C.                                         APPELLEE

                                              ------------

           FROM THE 153RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

                                              ------------

                                MEMORANDUM OPINION^[1]

Vicki Presley, as next friend of Shawn Davis, deceased, is attempting to appeal the trial court=s order dismissing with prejudice all of Presley=s claims against Republic Energy Drilling, L.L.C.  Although the trial court=s order in this case states that it Ais a final judgment and is appealable,@ the order does not dispose of Presley=s claims against Louis Goodman and Teddy Garland or purport to do so.  Further, the trial court has not signed a severance order.  Where, as here, there has not been a conventional trial on the merits, an order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and parties.^[2]   Accordingly, the order is not final for purposes of appeal.  Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.^[3] 

PER CURIAM

PANEL D: CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, JJ.

DELIVERED:  April 5, 2007

---

^[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

^[2]See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001).

^[3]See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).  On December 1, 2006, we notified Presley of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal and informed her that the appeal was subject to dismissal unless, by December 11, 2006, a response was filed showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  No response has been filed.