Gregory Royal v. MB Landscape Solutions, Individually and Jointly Baldemar Arias, Individually and Jointly Unnamed MB Landscape Solutions' Employee-Tortfeasor (TBD) , Individually and Jointly Unnamed MB Landscape Solutions' Liability Insurer (TBD) , Individually and Jointly Bridge at Terracina, LLC, D/B/A Bridge at Terracina, Individually and Jointly ( 2023 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-23-00462-CV
Gregory Royal, Appellant
v.
MB Landscape Solutions, individually and jointly; Baldemar Arias, individually and
jointly; Unnamed MB Landscape Solutions’ Employee-Tortfeasor (TBD), individually and
jointly; Unnamed MB Landscape Solutions’ Liability Insurer (TBD), individually and
jointly; Bridge at Terracina, LLC, d/b/a Bridge at Terracina, individually and jointly;
Unnamed Bridge at Terracina, LLC, d/b/a Bridge at Terracina Liability Insurer (TBD),
individually and jointly; Apartment Management Professionals, individually and jointly;
and Unnamed Apartment Management Professionals’ Liability Insurer (TBD),
individually and jointly, Appellees
FROM THE 455TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-GN-22-002763, THE HONORABLE LAURIE EISERLOH, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Gregory Royal filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s “Final
Judgment (Summary Judgment Order) signed on May 1, 2023, as well as the Order Denying
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of July 3, 2023, [and] any other rulings subsumed
therein.” 1 Upon initial review, the Clerk of this Court sent Royal a letter informing him that this
Court appears to lack jurisdiction over the appeal because our jurisdiction is limited to appeals in
1
As we informed Royal, the only summary-judgment order in the clerk’s record filed
with this Court is an “Order Granting Apartment Management Professionals’ Motion for
Summary Judgment” that was signed by the trial court on May 3, 2023. The trial court’s “Order
Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration” of the order granting Apartment Management
Professionals’ summary-judgment motion was signed by the trial court on July 3, 2023.
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 Royal’s claims against one defendant, and an order granting summary judgment
in favor of only one 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 September 25, 2023, informing this Court of any
basis that exists for jurisdiction. To date, no response has been filed.
Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, we dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
__________________________________________
Gisela D. Triana, Justice
Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Smith
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: September 29, 2023
2