|
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
|
NO. 02-11-00281-CV
|
Randle Daniels |
|
APPELLANT |
|
V.
|
||
|
Clark Giddings and State Farm Lloyds |
|
APPELLEES |
----------
FROM THE 96th District Court OF Tarrant COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]
----------
Appellant Randle Daniels attempts to appeal from an April 29, 2011 order granting summary judgment for Appellee State Farm Lloyds. On August 12, 2011, we notified Daniels of our concern that this court may not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the April 29, 2011 order and a May 23, 2011 order of nonsuit do not appear to dispose of all parties in the case, particularly Appellee Clark Giddings. We informed Daniels that unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with the court, on or before August 25, 2011, a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Daniels filed a response acknowledging that the appeal was premature because additional parties remained who were not subject to the summary judgment order. Accordingly, because the April 29, 2011 order is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001) (reasoning that an order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and parties); see City of Beaumont v. Guillory, 751 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1988) (reasoning that in the absence of a severance, the party against whom an interlocutory summary judgment has been rendered has the right of appeal when and not before the partial summary judgment is merged in a final judgment disposing of all parties and issues).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.
DELIVERED: August 31, 2011
[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.