Rebecca Hernandez v. the City of Lubbock and Blake Littlejohn ( 2005 )

NO. 07-05-0308-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
DECEMBER 14, 2005
______________________________
REBECCA HERNANDEZ,
Appellant
v.
CITY of LUBBOCK and BLAKE LITTLEJOHN,
Appellees
_________________________________
FROM THE 237TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 2005-529,164; HON. SAM MEDINA, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Order of Dismissal
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
Pending before the court is a motion to dismiss this appeal, filed by appellee Blake
Littlejohn.1 Therein, Littlejohn contends that we have no jurisdiction over the cause since
the appeal is interlocutory. Furthermore, it allegedly is interlocutory because no final order
disposing of all claims against all parties was executed by the trial court. In particular, the
1
Though appellant has had ten days to reply to the motion, no reply has been filed to date.
trial court’s order of dismissal did not include the City of Lubbock (Lubbock). The record
before us supports the contention of Littlejohn.
Hernandez sued both Lubbock and Littlejohn for damages. In response, Littlejohn
filed a motion to dismiss the suit against him. The trial court granted his motion and
entered an order “dismiss[ing] with prejudice” the claims against Littlejohn. Nothing was
said about the claims asserted against Lubbock.
Save for a few instances, courts of appeal have appellate jurisdiction only over final
orders and judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).
Additionally, a judgment is final only when it disposes of all claims asserted by or against
all parties. M. O. Dental Lab v. Rape, 139 S.W.3d 671, 676 (Tex.2004); Lehmann v.
Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d at 195. Here, the order from which appeal was taken did not
dispose of all claims against all parties. Nor does the record contain evidence evincing that
Hernandez’ claims against Lubbock were disposed of via any other order.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Per Curiam
2