Jimmy Gettings v. Goosehead Insurance Agency LLC, Robyn Jones, Mark Jones, and Mike Littau

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-21-00012-CV
___________________________
JIMMY GETTINGS, Appellant
V.
GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE AGENCY LLC, ROBYN JONES, MARK JONES,
AND MIKE LITTAU, Appellees
On Appeal from the 348th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 348-315458-20
Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Walker, J.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Jimmy Gettings sued ten unnamed defendants and five named
defendants in the trial court, including Appellees Goosehead Insurance Agency LLC,
Robyn Jones, Mark Jones, and Mike Littau. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss
Gettings’s claims against them under Rule 91a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
The trial court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed Gettings’s claims against
those four parties with prejudice. Gettings attempts to appeal that order.
On January 15, 2021, we notified Gettings of our concern that we lack
jurisdiction over this appeal because the trial court’s order does not appear to be a
final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order. We warned him that we could
dismiss his appeal absent a response by January 25, 2021 showing grounds for
continuing the appeal. Although Gettings amended his notice of appeal on February
1, 2021, we received no response to our letter.
This court has appellate jurisdiction only of appeals from final judgments and
from interlocutory orders that the Texas Legislature has specified are immediately
appealable. Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see, e.g., Tex.
Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014. A final judgment is one that disposes of every
pending claim and party. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205.
Gettings sued fifteen defendants in the underlying cause, but the order he
attempts to appeal dismisses only his claims against four of them. It therefore does
not dispose of every pending claim and party and thus is not a final judgment. See id.
2
Further, an order granting a Rule 91a motion to dismiss is not an appealable
interlocutory order. See Hollis v. ProPath Assocs., PLLC, No. 02-19-00167-CV, 2019 WL
3024472, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 11, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.); Gause v.
Triumph Hosp. of N. Houston, L.P., No. 14-18-00723-CV, 2018 WL 6217412, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 29, 2018, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.).
Because the order Gettings attempts to appeal is neither a final judgment nor
an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See
Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
Per Curiam
Delivered: March 11, 2021
3