Gloria Martinez v. Stella Sandoval, Individually, and Jose Ramos ( 2016 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-16-00396-CV
Gloria MARTINEZ,
Appellant
v.
Stella SANDOVAL, Individually, and Jose Ramos, Individually a/k/a Jose Rocha,
Appellees
From the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2014-CV-02209
Honorable H. Paul Canales, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: October 5, 2016
DIMSISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTON
Our review of the clerk’s record shows appellant filed a notice of appeal in which she
contends she is appealing an order signed on May 23, 2016 because the trial court “erroneously
granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.” After reviewing the clerk’s record, we have
found that on May 23, 2016, the trial court signed an order denying appellant’s motion for new
trial. The only order involving a ruling on a summary judgment was signed on April 1, 2016. That
order, however, grants a partial summary judgment in favor of one of the appellees, Stella
Sandoval. The order also states it “does not affect the remaining Defendant[, Jose Ramos,
04-16-00396-CV
individually].” According to the record, appellant originally filed suit against “Stella Sandoval,
individually and as next of friend of Jose Ramos, and Jose Ramos, individually.” Subsequently
the trial court rendered an order, requiring appellant to re-plead the suit as follows: Gloria Martinez
v. Stella Sandoval, individually, and Jose Ramos, individually. Nowhere in the clerk’s record do
we find an order disposing of the suit with regard to Jose Ramos, individually.
Generally, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.,
39 S.W.3d 191, 196 (Tex. 2001). A judgment is final for appellate purposes if it disposes of all
pending parties and claims in the record. Id. Because it appears the only order in the record is
interlocutory — as it does not dispose of all of the parties — and therefore, not appealable, there
is no final judgment in the clerk’s record. We have found no authority permitting an interlocutory
appeal from a partial summary judgment order in the circumstances presented here. See Texas A
& M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. 2007) (holding appellate courts have
jurisdiction to consider interlocutory orders only if statute explicitly provides such jurisdiction).
Based on the foregoing, we ordered appellant to file a written response on or before
September 6, 2016 in this court showing cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want
of jurisdiction. We advised that if appellant failed to satisfactorily respond, the appeal would be
dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). At this time, appellant has not filed a response establishing
the existence of a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order.
Accordingly, we hold that at this time, there is no order or judgment from which appellant
may prosecute an appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
-2-