RoyalCo Oil & Gas Corporation v. Texas CES, Inc., D/B/A Shale Tank Truck, Mercer Well Service, and Basin Tool Company

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-10-00307-CV
ROYALCO OIL & GAS APPELLANT
CORPORATION
V.
TEXAS CES, INC., D/B/A APPELLEE
SHALE TANK TRUCK,
MERCER WELL SERVICE,
AND BASIN TOOL
COMPANY
------------
FROM THE 43RD DISTRICT COURT OF PARKER COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
------------
Appellant RoyalCo Oil and Gas Corporation attempts to appeal from the
trial court’s order granting the motion for summary judgment of appellee Texas
CES, Inc. d/b/a Shale Tank Truck, Mercer Well Service, and Basin Tool
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Company. Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
In its order, the trial court found that appellee is entitled to judgment on its
sworn account claim but stated, ―The Court reserves the issue of damages
recoverable by Texas CES at this time.‖ We sent the parties a letter expressing
our concern that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal because the trial court’s
summary judgment order is not a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory
order. Our letter told the parties that unless they filed a response showing
grounds for continuing the appeal, it could be dismissed.
Appellate courts have limited jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments
and from specific interlocutory orders designated by the legislature as
appealable. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001);
see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (Vernon 2008). A judgment
entered without a conventional trial on the merits is final ―if and only if either it
actually disposes of all claims and parties then before the court, regardless of its
language, or it states with unmistakable clarity that it is a final judgment as to all
claims and all parties.‖ Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 192–93.
Here, the order is not final and appealable because it reserves the issue of
damages for further determination. Also, the order is not an appealable
interlocutory order. Accordingly, because there is no final judgment or
appealable interlocutory order, we grant appellee’s motion, and we dismiss the
appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Stettner
2
Clinic, Inc. v. Burns, 61 S.W.3d 16, 19–20 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2000, no pet.)
(dismissing an appeal for want of jurisdiction because the summary judgment
order reserved the issue of damages for later resolution); Pierce v. Benefit Trust
Life Ins. Co., 784 S.W.2d 516, 517 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1990, writ denied)
(―[U]nless a final summary judgment has been rendered, an appellate court does
not have jurisdiction over the merits of the appeal.‖).
TERRIE LIVINGSTON
CHIEF JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.
DELIVERED: October 28, 2010
3