Edward Pyle Jr. v. Adam Stanley Schuenemann D & K Plumbing, Inc. And Roto-Rooter Services Company

Opinion issued April 22, 2021
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-21-00135-CV
———————————
EDWARD PYLE, JR., Appellant
V.
ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES COMPANY, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
Galveston County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. CV-0086126
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Edward Pyle, Jr., appealed from the trial court’s February 8, 2021
partial summary judgment order in favor of appellee, Roto-Rooter Services
Company. On March 23, 2021, appellee filed its first amended motion to dismiss
appeal, arguing that the February 8, 2021 order did not “dispose of all parties and
issues,” and as such “is not a final, appealable judgment.” See generally Lehmann
v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 206 (Tex. 2001) (discussing finality).
On April 7, 2021, appellant filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal.
The motion requests that all costs on appeal be taxed against the parties who incurred
the same. No other party has filed a notice of appeal and no opinion has issued. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), (c). Appellant’s motion includes a certificate of
conference representing that appellee does not oppose the relief requested in
appellant’s motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a)(2).
Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1); 43.2(f). We direct the Clerk of this Court that costs are to be
taxed against the party who incurred the same. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d). We
dismiss all other pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Countiss, Rivas-Molloy, and Guerra.
2