Benita Bergman v. Kendrick Skipper D/B/A Chick-Fil-A at Magnolia

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-19-00216-CV __________________

BENITA BERGMAN, Appellant

V.

KENDRICK SKIPPER D/B/A CHICK-FIL-A AT MAGNOLIA, Appellee

NO. 09-19-00217-CV __________________

CHICK-FIL-A, INC., Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 284th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 18-07-09536-CV __________________________________________________________________

1 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Benita Bergman filed notices of appeal from the trial court’s orders

granting summary judgment in favor of appellees. In each cause, the appellees filed

a motion to dismiss the appeals, in which the appellees assert that the orders are not

appealable because (1) claims against other parties remain unresolved and (2) the

orders do not contain unmistakable language of finality.

A judgment is not final “unless it actually disposes of every pending claim

and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it disposes of all claims

and all parties.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001). We

lack jurisdiction over appeals from interlocutory orders unless a statute specifically

authorizes an appeal. See, e.g., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (West

Supp. 2018). We conclude that the trial court’s orders do not dispose of all parties

and claims, and they do not contain unequivocal language indicating that the trial

court intended its orders to be final. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205-06. We lack

jurisdiction over these appeals, and we dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

APPEALS DISMISSED.

_________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on August 21, 2019 Opinion Delivered August 22, 2019 Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ. 2