DISMISS and Opinion Filed February 25, 2019
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-18-01215-CV
KEISHA POPE-NIXON, Appellant
V.
JEANINE HOWARD AND ALVIN GREEN, Appellees
On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-02907
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Nowell
Opinion by Chief Justice Burns
At issue in this appeal is the trial court’s order granting Jeanine Howard’s anti-SLAPP
motion to dismiss. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 27.005. Howard filed the motion
after being sued by Keisha Pope-Nixon for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional
distress. Pope-Nixon also sued Alvin Green.
In relevant part, the challenged order states as follows:
[T]he Court finds that the conduct of Plaintiff Keisha Pope-Nixon violates Chapter
27 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. IT IS THEREFORE
ORDERED that the Motion filed by Howard is in all things GRANTED and that
this case is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that in accordance
with Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 27.009(1), Howard is entitled to
recover her attorney’s fees, court costs, and other expenses in bringing her Motion
to Dismiss and defending against these claims. Defendant is ordered to submit
evidence of her fees, court costs, and other expenses by affidavit within 14 days
from the date of this Order.
Because the trial court’s order left pending the damages issue and Green had not moved
for dismissal, we questioned our jurisdiction over the appeal. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39
S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (subject to mostly statutory exceptions, appeal may only be taken
from judgment that disposes of all parties and claims); Trane US Inc. v. Sublett, 501 S.W.3d 783,
785, 786 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2016, no pet.) (per curiam) (order granting chapter 27 motion to
dismiss appealable if no pending claims or parties remain). In response, Pope-Nixon filed a letter
brief agreeing the Court lacks jurisdiction. Howard also filed a letter brief, but argues the order is
final. As to the claims against Green, she asserts the language dismissing “the case . . . . in its
entirety” disposed of Green’s claims even though he did not move for dismissal. See Lehmann,
39 S.W.3d 200 (order that includes language unequivocally disposing of all claims and parties is
final even if record does not provide adequate basis for rendition of judgment). As to the damages
issue, she notes section 27.005 of the anti-SLAPP statute requires a trial court to rule on a motion
to dismiss within thirty days of the date of the hearing on the motion. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.
CODE ANN. § 27.005. She further notes the trial court failed to rule on the request for fees within
that time period.
Generally, an order that expressly adjudicates all parties and claims in a case is final and
appealable. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 206. When, as here, however, the order on its face is
ambiguous, it is not final unless the records supports finality. See In re Elizondo, 544 S.W.3d 824,
827-28 (Tex. 2018). The record before the Court does not do that.
To the extent Howard argues the damages issue was overruled by operation of law, section
27.005 does not require the trial court to completely resolve all matters raised in a motion to
dismiss within thirty days of the dismissal hearing. It requires only that the trial court determine
–2–
whether the cause of action should be dismissed. See DeAngelis v. Protective Parents Coalition,
556 S.W.3d 836, 859 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018, no pet.).
Because the trial court’s order does not dispose of all claims, we lack jurisdiction and
dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
/Robert D. Burns, III/
ROBERT D. BURNS, III
CHIEF JUSTICE
181215F.P05
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
KEISHA POPE-NIXON, Appellant On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-18-01215-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-02907.
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns,
JEANINE HOWARD AND ALVIN Justices Molberg and Nowell participating.
GREEN, Appellees
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
We ORDER appellees Jeanine Howard and Alvin Green recover their costs, if any, of this
appeal from appellant Keisha Pope-Nixon.
Judgment entered February 25, 2019.
–4–