Thomas S. Diffley v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-14-00049-CV THOMAS S. DIFFLEY APPELLANT V. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. APPELLEES AND MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. ---------- FROM THE 348TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 ---------- On February 14, 2014, appellant Thomas S. Diffley filed a notice of appeal in this court attempting to appeal the trial court’s February 4, 2014 order granting summary judgment in favor of appellees JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. The order did not dispose of 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. Diffley’s claims asserted against the other defendants in the case. On February 14, 2014, we sent a letter to the parties expressing our concern that we may not have jurisdiction over this appeal because the summary judgment does not appear to be a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order. We stated that unless Diffley or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, the appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. In response to our letter, Diffley filed a motion for continuance, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. Because the summary judgment at issue is not a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, we deny Diffley’s motion for continuance and dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (reasoning that a judgment or order is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims before the court). /s/ Lee Gabriel LEE GABRIEL JUSTICE PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GABRIEL, JJ. DELIVERED: March 20, 2014 2