Christy Heath v. Jyoti Muktevi Karumuru

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 17, 2024
• Docket: 07-24-00039-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-24-00039-CV

CHRISTY HEATH, APPELLANT

V.

JYOTI MUKTEVI KARUMURU, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 158th District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 23-6931-393, Honorable Steve Burgess, Presiding

September 17, 2024 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant, Christy Heath, files this appeal from a default judgment granted in favor

of Appellee, Jyoti Muktevi Karumuru. Because there is no final judgment in this case and

the default judgment presented on appeal is not immediately appealable, we dismiss for

want of jurisdiction.1

1 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by

the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. Should a conflict exist between precedent of the Second Court of Appeals and this Court, this appeal will be decided in accordance with the precedent of the Second Court of Appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3; Mitschke v. Borromeo, 645 S.W.3d 251 (Tex. 2022). Heath and Karumuru were involved in a car accident in 2023. On August 11, 2023,

Karumuru filed suit against Heath. In her petition, Karumuru sought damages for

negligence and also requested exemplary damages for Heath’s purported gross

negligence. After a hearing, the trial courted signed a default judgment against Heath on

September 14, 2023. The judgment “finds [Heath] was negligent and that such

negligence was the proximate cause of [Karumuru’s] damages [.]” The judgment does

not expressly dispose of the gross negligence claim and request for exemplary damages.

We have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a final judgment or from an

interlocutory order made immediately appealable by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con

Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 & n.12 (Tex. 2001); Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–

53 (Tex. 1998) (per curiam). “[W]hen there has not been a conventional trial on the merits,

an order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of

every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally

disposes of all claims and all parties.” Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205.

The judgment in this case does not dispose of Karumuru’s gross negligence claim

for exemplary damages, nor does it contain unequivocal finality language. See Bennett

v. Joubert, No. 02-19-00027-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 7674, at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Fort

Worth Aug. 26, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing In re Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse

of McAllen, Inc., 167 S.W.3d 827, 830 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding)); In re Urban 8 LLC,

689 S.W.3d 926, 929 (Tex. 2024) (“We have long held that a default judgment awarding

actual damages is not final if it fails to dispose of the plaintiff’s request for exemplary

damages based on gross negligence.”). By letter of August 19, 2024, we notified the

parties that it did not appear we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Both parties have filed

a response but failed to demonstrate grounds for continuing the appeal. 2 Because Heath has not presented this Court with a final judgment or appealable

interlocutory order, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a).

Per Curiam