COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-13-00255-CV
CITY OF BLUE MOUND, TEXAS APPELLANT
V.
SOUTHWEST WATER COMPANY APPELLEES
AND MONARCH UTILITIES I, LP
----------
FROM THE 348TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant City of Blue Mound, Texas, attempts to appeal from the trial
court’s “Order Granting Defendant’s Motions for Summary Judgment and
Dismissing Case.” On July 23, 2013, we notified the parties of our concern that
this court may not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the “Order Granting
Defendant’s Motions for Summary Judgment and Dismissing Case” did not
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
appear to be a final judgment or an appealable order. We informed the parties
that unless Appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with the
court a response by August 2, 2013, showing grounds for continuing the appeal,
the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P.
42.3(a), 44.3. Appellant filed a response, agreeing that the appeal should be
dismissed because the trial court’s judgment, which does not dispose of
Appellant’s claims against Southwest Water Company, is not a final judgment.
Appellate courts have jurisdiction over appeals only from final judgments
and from specific types of 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. §§ 15.003(c), 51.014 (West Supp. 2012),
§ 171.098 (West 2011); Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 1205.068 (West 2000). A
judgment is final and appealable if it disposes of all parties and all issues.
Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. An order that does not dispose of all parties and all
issues in the case must be classified, for purposes of appeal, as an unappealable
interlocutory order. Ruiz v. Ruiz, 946 S.W.2d 123, 124 (Tex. App.—El Paso
1997, no writ). Without affirmative statutory authority to hear an interlocutory
appeal, this court is without jurisdiction. Id.; see, e.g., Rotella v. Nelson
Architectural Eng’rs, Inc., 251 S.W.3d 216, 218 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.)
(dismissing for want of jurisdiction when trial court granted summary judgment
against two defendants but there was no order or nonsuit in the record disposing
2
of the remaining defendants or an order to sever the claims upon which summary
judgment had been granted).
Because the order here meets none of the statutory exceptions and is not
otherwise final and appealable, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.
DELIVERED: August 29, 2013
3