John A. Saldana v. Richard Mata Jr. ( 2014 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00010-CV
John A. SALDAÑA,
Appellant
v.
Richard MATA Jr.,
Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 382404
Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: February 19, 2014
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
John A. Saldaña appeals the trial court’s summary judgment order that he take nothing on
his breach of contract claim against Richard Mata Jr. Saldaña sued Mata in small claims court
seeking judgment for a referral fee allegedly owed to him by Mata. Mata filed counterclaims for
money had and received and unjust enrichment and sought to recover his attorney’s fees. After a
jury trial, the Justice of the Peace signed a judgment in favor of Saldaña. Mata perfected an appeal
to the County Court at Law of Bexar County. Mata then filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on Saldaña’s breach of contract claim. The trial court granted the motion on November
04-14-00010-CV
26, 2013, and ordered that Saldaña take nothing on his cause of action against Mata for breach of
contract. Saldaña attempts to appeal this order.
With exceptions not applicable in this case, this court has jurisdiction only over final
judgments. North East Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966). To be
final, a judgment must dispose of all issues and parties in a case. Id. A summary judgment order
is final for purposes of appeal only if it either “actually disposes of all claims and parties then
before the court, ... or it states with unmistakable clarity that it is a final judgment as to all claims
and all parties.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 192-93 (Tex. 2001). In the absence
of express language indicating that the trial court intended to dispose of all claims and parties and
render a final judgment, an order that adjudicates only plaintiff’s claims against the defendant and
does not adjudicate a counterclaim is not final. Id. Such an order is not appealable unless the court
makes the judgment final by severing the causes into a separate action. Martinez v. Humble Sand
& Gravel, Inc., 875 S.W.2d 311, 312 (Tex. 1994).
The trial court did not adjudicate Mata’s counterclaims, and the November 26, 2013
summary judgment order does not state that it is final or appealable. The record does not contain
an order of severance. It therefore appears that the November 26, 2013 order is interlocutory and
not appealable. We ordered Saldaña to file a response by January 28, 2013, showing cause why
this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We advised Saldaña the appeal would
be dismissed if he failed to file a satisfactory response within the time provided. Saldaña has not
responded to our order.
We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
-2-