Delester Scott v. Peter Hinh

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
• Decided: June 18, 2026
• Docket: 01-25-01006-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued June 18, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-01006-CV ——————————— DELESTER SCOTT, Appellant V. PETER HINH, Appellee

On Appeal from the 333rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2025-35667

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Delester Scott, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s

November 1, 2025 order denying his motion for summary judgment. We dismiss

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On May 21, 2025, Scott filed suit against appellee, Peter Hinh, and others for

negligence. On August 5, 2025, Scott moved for summary judgment on his

negligence claim against Hinh. On November 1, 2025, the trial court denied Scott’s

motion for summary judgment. On December 1, 2025, Scott filed a notice of appeal,

seeking to challenge the trial court’s November 1, 2025 order.

Unless specifically authorized by statute, Texas appellate courts have

jurisdiction only to review final judgments. McFadin v. Broadway Coffeehouse,

LLC, 539 S.W.3d 278, 283 (Tex. 2018). A judgment or order is final if it disposes

of every pending claim and party. See Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191,

205 (Tex. 2001). An order denying a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment does

not finally dispose of the plaintiff’s claims and does not constitute a final judgment.

See Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Cates, 927 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. 1996); Surety

Bonding Co. of Am. v. Auto. Acceptance Corp., 674 S.W.3d 580, 587 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2023, no pet.) (“[A] denial of a summary-judgment is generally

not appealable . . . .”); Mitchell v. Mitchell, 445 S.W.3d 790, 801 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (“Generally, the denial of a motion for summary

judgment is an interlocutory order that . . . is not appealable.”). Absent a final

judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction over appellant’s appeal, and we must dismiss.

In re C.L.M.D., No. 01-25-00342-CV, 2025 WL 2109895, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] July 29, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.); Beckham Grp., P.C. v.

2 Snyder, 315 S.W.3d 244, 245 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.) (“Unless the record

affirmatively shows the propriety of appellate jurisdiction, we must dismiss.”).

On June 2, 2026, the Clerk of this Court notified Scott that the Court may

dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction unless he timely filed a response

demonstrating that the Court had jurisdiction over his appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a). Scott did not adequately respond.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Rivas-Molloy and Guiney.