Katharine Ehresman v. LF Technology Development Corporation Limited TECX Academy Austin, Inc. Starstone Specialty Insurance Company And, Individually, Alexander Greystoke Patricio Lebrija John McLaughlin Lyanne Millhouse Eli Rabinowitz Simon Holden Michael Culhane Oscar Ramos Susan Strasberg Chris Nichols Michael Casey And John Doe(s) 1-20 ( 2022 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-22-00433-CV
Katharine Ehresman, Appellant
v.
LF Technology Development Corporation Limited; TECX Academy Austin, Inc.;
Starstone Specialty Insurance Company; and, Individually, Alexander Greystoke; Patricio
Lebrija; John McLaughlin; Lyanne Millhouse; Eli Rabinowitz; Simon Holden; Michael
Culhane; Oscar Ramos; Susan Strasberg; Chris Nichols; Michael Casey; and John Doe(s)
1-20, Appellees
FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-GN-20-001996, THE HONORABLE MADELEINE CONNOR, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Katharine Ehresman filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s
June 15, 2022 “Order Granting Named Defendants’ No Evidence Motion for Summary
Judgment.” Upon initial review, the Clerk of this Court sent Ehresman a letter informing her that
this Court appears to lack jurisdiction over the appeal because our jurisdiction is limited to
appeals in which there exists a final or appealable judgment or order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. &
Rem. Code § 51.012; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (explaining
that appeal generally may only be taken from final judgment that disposes of all pending parties
and claims in record unless statute provides for interlocutory appeal). In this case, the trial
court’s order only disposes of Ehresman’s claims against some, but not all, of the defendants,
and an order granting summary judgment in favor of only some of multiple defendants is not an
appealable interlocutory order. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998)
(“Appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders only if
a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction.”); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
§ 51.014 (specifically permitting appeal of various interlocutory orders but not permitting
appeal from grant of partial summary judgment). The Clerk requested a response on or before
October 28, 2022, informing this Court of any basis that exists for jurisdiction. Ehresman failed
to file any response.
Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, we dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
__________________________________________
Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Smith
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: November 18, 2022
2