Joel D. Mallory v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Successor by Merger to Chase Home Finance, L.L.C., and Codilis & Stawiarski, P.C.

Opinion issued June 13, 2013
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-12-00707-CV
———————————
JOEL D. MALLORY, Appellant
V.
J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO
CHASE HOME FINANCE, L.L.C., AND CODILIS & STAWIARSKI, P.C.,
Appellees
On Appeal from the 151st District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2010-64487
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Joel Mallory filed suit against appellees J.P. Morgan Chase Bank,
N.A., as successor by merger to Chase Home Finance, L.L.C. (“J.P. Morgan
Chase”) and Codilis & Stawiarski, P.C., asserting claims under the Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”) and the Texas Debt Collection Act (“TDCA”),
among other claims. See generally TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. chapter 17 (West
2011 & Supp. 2012); TEX. FIN. CODE ANN. chapter 392 (West 2011). The trial
court granted J.P. Morgan Chase’s motion for summary judgment as to all claims
asserted by Mallory against J.P. Morgan Chase. Subsequently, the trial court
granted Codilis & Stawiarski’s motion to dismiss Mallory’s DTPA claims against
it. After the trial court signed this second order, Mallory filed a notice of appeal.
Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v.
Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). We have no jurisdiction to hear
an appeal from a judgment that is not final, unless there is specific statutory
authority permitting an appeal before final judgment. See Stary v. DeBord, 967
S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex. 1998); Iacono v. Lyons, 6 S.W.3d 715, 716–17 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.). Here, the record reflects that no final
judgment has been entered by the trial court in this case, because there is no order
disposing of the remaining claims pending against Codilis & Stawiarski.
On May 13, 2013, the appellees filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want
of jurisdiction because there is no final judgment. We requested appellant file a
response to the motion, and appellant filed a response on May 30, 2013. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 42.3. The response does not demonstrate grounds for continuing the
appeal.
2
Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss all pending motions
as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justice Jennings, Brown, and Huddle.
3