Felicia Jones v. Louis Vuitton Houston Galleria ( 2014 )

Opinion issued June 10, 2014
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-14-00403-CV
———————————
FELICIA NICOLE JONES, Appellant
V.
LOUIS VUITTON HOUSTON GALLERIA, ET AL, Appellees
On Appeal from the 412th District Court
Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 75486-CV
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellee, Mercedes Benz of Houston Greenway, filed a motion seeking the
dismissal of Appellant Felicia Jones’ appeal for want of jurisdiction.
On March 6, 2014, Mercedes Benz filed a Motion to Dismiss in trial court
pursuant to Rule 91(a). See TEX. R. CIV. P. 91(a). The Brazoria County Court held
a hearing on the motion and granted an interlocutory judgment dismissing
appellant’s claims against Mercedes Benz. Appellant brings this appeal from the
interlocutory judgment dismissing claims against Mercedes Benz. The original
trial court suit is still pending against other named parties.
Texas appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review final judgments, and
interlocutory orders are only appealable if specified by statute. See Bison Bldg.
Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 422 S.W.3d 582, 585 (Tex. 2012); Stary v. DeBord,
967 S.W.2d 352, 352-353 (Tex. 1998). An order that disposes of claims against
one or some of the defendants in a suit does not render a judgment final. See
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001).
The order appealed from here is not a final judgment because the suit is still
pending in Brazoria County and only Mercedes Benz has been dismissed as
defendant. The appellant has failed to point to any statutory authority that would
allow for an interlocutory appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). We dismiss all pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown.
2