eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2020-08

Ibironke Onitiju v. Beauty Empire Corporation Beauty Empire Store, Beauty Empire, Soon Hi Woo, Ku Yel Lee, and Hin Ju Kwak Kim (Aka Sean Kim) ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  • Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 11, 2020.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-19-00993-CV
IBIRONKE ONITIJU, Appellant
V.
BEAUTY EMPIRE CORPORATION BEAUTY EMPIRE STORE, BEAUTY
EMPIRE, SOON HI WOO, KU YEL LEE, AND HIN JU KWAK KIM (AKA
SEAN KIM), Appellees
On Appeal from the 295th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2018-33544
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an attempted appeal from an order signed November 25, 2019.
Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con
Corp.,
    39 S.W.3d 191
    , 195 (Tex. 2001). When orders do not dispose of all pending
parties and claims, the orders remain interlocutory and unappealable until final
judgment is rendered unless a statutory exception applies. Bally Total Fitness
Corp. v. Jackson,
    53 S.W.3d 352
    , 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v.
Tipps,
    842 S.W.2d 266
    , 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The underlying order
in this case fails to dispose of the claims against Hin Ju Kwak Kim.
On July 3, 2020, notification was transmitted to the parties of this court’s
intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a
response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal on or before July 13,
2020. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant responded by requesting that this
court abate the appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 27.2 until the
trial court renders a default judgment against appellee Hin Ju Kwak Kim. See Tex.
R. App. P. 27.2. This court denied that request because the rendering of a default
judgment is more than a mere clarification of an order as contemplated by the
Texas Supreme Court in Lehmann. See
    Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 206 
    & n.92. See
also Coastal Terminal Operators v. Essex Crane Rental Corp.,
    133 S.W.3d 335
    ,
339 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.); Iacono v. Lyons,
    6 S.W.3d 715
    , 717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Leniek v. Evolution Well
Services, LLC, No. 14-18-00954-CV,
    2019 WL 438825 
    at *2 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 2, 2019, no pet.).
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See
Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Wise, Bourliot, and Spain.
2