Gretchen Blomstrom v. Altered Images Hair Studio, Inc. ( 2020 )

Opinion issued October 15, 2020
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-19-00456-CV
———————————
GRETCHEN BLOMSTROM, Appellant
V.
ALTERED IMAGES HAIR STUDIO, Appellee
On Appeal from the 412th District Court
Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 86652-CV
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Gretchen Blomstrom appeals from a summary judgment. Because the
judgment is not final, we dismiss her appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
The trial court granted Altered Images Hair Studio’s motion for summary
judgment. In the same order, the trial court severed claims asserted by Gretchen
Blomstrom against Altered Images Hair Studio into a separate cause number. The
record does not show that Blomstrom’s claims have been resolved. On the contrary,
the parties’ appellate briefs represent that the trial court’s severance leaves these
claims unresolved.
We issued a notice of intent to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction
because the summary judgment is not final. In our notice, we requested that
Blomstrom respond within 10 days showing by citation to the law and the record
that jurisdiction exists. The deadline has passed and Blomstrom has not filed a
response.
SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
Applicable Law
Absent a statute allowing an interlocutory appeal, a party may only appeal
from a final judgment. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 51.012, 51.014; Lehmann
v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When “there has not been a
conventional trial on the merits, an order or judgment is not final for purposes of
appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it
2
clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.”
Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205.
Severance does not make an interlocutory judgment final and appealable if
the judgment merely disposes of a subset of the claims between the severed parties.
See Harris Cty. Flood Control Dist. v. Adam, 66 S.W.3d 265, 266 (Tex. 2001) (per
curiam) (judgment in severed cause that disposed of all claims between parties to
appeal was final and appealable); Waite v. Woodard, Hall & Primm, P.C., 137
S.W.3d 277, 279–80 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (judgment in
severed cause that left “no remaining issues to be disposed of” between parties to
appeal was final and appealable).
If a party appeals from a partial summary judgment that disposes of some but
not all claims between the parties, we must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction,
even if the trial court severed the disposed claims from those that remain pending.
Van Duren v. Chife, 569 S.W.3d 176, 184 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, no
pet.); Davati v. McElya, 530 S.W.3d 265, 267 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017,
no pet.); Duke v. Am. W. Steel, 526 S.W.3d 814, 816 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2017, no pet.).
Analysis
Claims between Blomstrom and Altered Images Hair Studio remain pending
in the trial court. Thus, Blomstrom’s appeal from the partial summary judgment in
3
Altered Images Hair Studio’s favor is not final and appealable. See Van Duren, 569
S.W.3d at 184; Davati, 530 S.W.3d at 267; Duke, 526 S.W.3d at 816.
CONCLUSION
We dismiss this appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
Gordon Goodman
Justice
Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly and Goodman.
Justice Kelly, concurring.
4