Benita Bergman v. Kendrick Skipper D/B/A Chick-Fil-A at Magnolia

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-19-00216-CV
__________________
BENITA BERGMAN, Appellant
V.
KENDRICK SKIPPER D/B/A CHICK-FIL-A AT MAGNOLIA, Appellee
__________________
NO. 09-19-00217-CV
__________________
BENITA BERGMAN, Appellant
V.
CHICK-FIL-A, INC., Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 284th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 18-07-09536-CV
__________________________________________________________________
1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Benita Bergman filed notices of appeal from the trial court’s orders
granting summary judgment in favor of appellees. In each cause, the appellees filed
a motion to dismiss the appeals, in which the appellees assert that the orders are not
appealable because (1) claims against other parties remain unresolved and (2) the
orders do not contain unmistakable language of finality.
A judgment is not final “unless it actually disposes of every pending claim
and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it disposes of all claims
and all parties.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001). We
lack jurisdiction over appeals from interlocutory orders unless a statute specifically
authorizes an appeal. See, e.g., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (West
Supp. 2018). We conclude that the trial court’s orders do not dispose of all parties
and claims, and they do not contain unequivocal language indicating that the trial
court intended its orders to be final. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205-06. We lack
jurisdiction over these appeals, and we dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
APPEALS DISMISSED.
_________________________
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on August 21, 2019
Opinion Delivered August 22, 2019
Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
2