In the Matter of the Marriage of Joe Davis and Janelle Hui Luo v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-23-00396-CV
IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF JOE DAVIS AND JANELLE HUI LUO
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
Williamson County, Texas1
Trial Court No. 23-0277-FCl, Honorable Rick J. Kennon, Presiding
December 6, 2023
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.
Appellant, Janelle Hui Luo, proceeding pro se, appeals from the trial court’s Order
Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. We dismiss the appeal for
want of jurisdiction.
In January 2023, Appellee, Joe Davis, filed a petition for divorce from Luo. Davis
later filed a motion for a partial summary judgment regarding the enforceability of the
parties’ premarital agreement. On September 7, 2023, the trial court signed an order
1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the
Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
granting Davis partial summary judgment and finding that the premarital agreement is
fully enforceable. Luo filed this appeal from the Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment. A final hearing in the divorce proceeding has not yet been
scheduled.
We have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a final judgment or from an
interlocutory order made immediately appealable by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con
Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex.
1998) (per curiam). “[W]hen 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 clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes
of all claims and all parties.” Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205. Here, the trial court’s partial
summary judgment order is not a final judgment as it does not include any finality
language, nor does it dispose of all pending parties and claims. Further, we have found
no statutory authority permitting its interlocutory appeal.
By letter of November 2, 2023, we notified Luo that it did not appear we have
jurisdiction over the appeal because the trial court’s Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment is not a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order.
We directed Luo to show grounds for continuing the appeal by November 13, 2023, or we
would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Luo has not responded to our letter to
date.
Because there is no final judgment or appealable order presented for review, we
dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
Per Curiam
2