Arthur Johnson v. Sgt. Roberts, City of Houston, Reyes, Alfred, Lee P. Brown, C. O. Bradford, Chief and Mayor

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 11, 2006
• Docket: 06-05-00085-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-05-00085-CV

ARTHUR JOHNSON, Appellant

V.

SGT. ROBERTS, ET AL., CITY OF HOUSTON, ET AL.,

REYES, ALFRED, ET AL., LEE P. BROWN, ET AL.,

C. O. BRADFORD, ET AL., CHIEF & MAYOR, Appellees

---

On Appeal from the 189th Judicial District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2001-52637

---

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Ross

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Arthur Johnson appeals from a summary judgment that ended his lawsuit against the appellees because he had not timely provided the notice required under the Tort Claims Act—and its application through the Houston City Charter.

          A party may normally appeal only from final orders or judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A judgment is not final unless it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record. Guajardo v. Conwell, 46 S.W.3d 862, 863–64 (Tex. 2001) (per curiam). An order that disposes of claims by only some of multiple plaintiffs does not adjudicate claims by the other plaintiffs. Bobbitt v. Stran, 52 S.W.3d 734, 735 (Tex. 2001); see Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205. When—as in this case—only three of five defendants move for summary judgment, only a partial summary judgment could properly be rendered by the court. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205–06.

          The motion for summary judgment was filed by counsel on behalf of Lee P. Brown, C. O. Bradford, and Alfred Reyes. The judgment itself specifically renders judgment only in favor of Lee Brown, C. O. Bradford, and Alfred Reyes. It does not purport to address claims made by Johnson against either the City of Houston or Sgt. Roberts. As such, the judgment does not purport to dispose of all issues and parties in the case and contains no clear indication that the trial court intended to completely dispose of the entire case. See id.

          The summary judgment is interlocutory. We, therefore, have no jurisdiction over this appeal.

          We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

                                                                Donald R. Ross

                                                                Justice

Date Submitted:      February 24, 2006

Date Decided:         May 11, 2006