Ralph O. Douglas v. Joyce Booker ( 2008 )

Opinion issued October , 2008

  Opinion issued December 18, 2008  

In The

Court of Appeals  

For The  

First District of Texas  

____________

NO. 01-06-01069-CV

____________

RALPH O. DOUGLAS, Appellant

V.

JOYCE BOOKER, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 129th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2005-80795

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION               Appellant, Ralph O. Douglas, challenges the trial court’s order denying his no-evidence motion for summary judgment.

               We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Analysis

               The order from which Douglas appeals states as follows:

Order

On the 23rd day of October, 2006, came to be heard plaintiff’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment. After considering the pleadings, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion.

On November 20, 2006, Douglas served notice of his intent to appeal this trial court order.

               The general rule, with a few mostly statutory exceptions, is that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When 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 unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and parties. Id. at 205. Here, the trial court order denied Douglas’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment, but it did not dispose of his claims, nor did it unequivocally state that it finally disposed of all claims and parties.

               The Clerk of this Court brought the interlocutory nature of the order from which Douglas is appealing to his attention and requested that Douglas file a response explaining the jurisdictional basis of the appeal. Douglas has responded, but has not provided the requested explanation.

Conclusion

               We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Any pending motions are likewise dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Terry Jennings

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Hanks, and Bland.