TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-99-00322-CV
Michael McGraw, Appellant
v.
City of Austin, Texas; Austin Police Department; Travis County District Attorney;
James Guice; Cynthia Seago; William Bastow; and Leo Enriquez, Appellees
NO. 95-01589, HONORABLE SUZANNE COVINGTON, JUDGE PRESIDING
Alleging that they were damaged when property was confiscated during an arrest, McGraw and Hoffman sued the City of Austin, Texas; the Austin Police Department; the Travis County District Attorney; Leo Enriquez; Cynthia Seago; James Guice; and William Bastow. In their second amended petition, McGraw and Hoffman added claims against Wade Russell, David Counts, and Steve Hamblin. (1) The district court dismissed with prejudice McGraw and Hoffman's claims against the Travis County District Attorney. Enriquez, Seago, and Guice then moved for summary judgment on McGraw and Hoffman's claims against them. The court granted the motion for summary judgment. McGraw filed a notice of appeal.
With exceptions not applicable here, an appellate court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments. New York Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d 677, 678-79 (Tex. 1990); see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.012 (West 1997). To be final, the judgment must dispose of all parties and issues before the court. Mafrige v. Ross, 866 S.W.2d 590, 591 (Tex. 1993). The court's orders here do not dispose of McGraw and Hoffman's claims against Bastow, the City of Austin, and the Austin Police Department. Assuming that the limitations period has not expired, Russell, Counts, and Hamblin could still be served and made parties in the district court. Because the court's orders do not result from a conventional trial on the merits, we cannot presume that the court intended to dispose of all parties and issues. City of Beaumont v. Guillory, 751 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1988). Presented with a judgment that is not final, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.
We therefore grant the Travis County District Attorney's motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
Lee Yeakel, Justice
Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction on Appellee's Motion
Filed: January 27, 2000
Do Not Publish
1. McGraw and Hoffman requested in their second amended petition that the district court cause Russell, Counts, and Hamblin to be served. The record does not show that, in the two years between the filing of the second amended petition and the notice of appeal, Russell, Counts, or Hamblin were ever served or that they answered or otherwise appeared in the district court.