Gilbert Pena, , Cynthia H. Pena and as Legal Guardians of Mark A. Pena v. Flexsteel Pipeline Technologies Inc. "Flexsteel", Travelers "The Phoenix Insurance Company", Esurance Insurance Company and Marco A. Dunon-Sigismondi

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 27, 2024
• Docket: 01-24-00405-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued August 27, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00405-CV ——————————— GILBERT PENA, CYNTHIA H. PENA, AND MARK A. PENA, Appellants V. FLEXSTEEL PIPELINE TECHNOLOGIES INC., TRAVELERS "THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY," ESURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, AND MARCO A. DUNON-SIGISMONDI, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Waller County, Texas Trial Court Case No. CV24-02-1030

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants attempt to appeal the trial court’s May 21, 2024 order denying

appellant Gilbert Pena’s motion for summary judgment on claims against one of the

defendants in the underlying case. We dismiss the appeal. Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals from final

judgments unless a statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal. CMH Homes v. Perez,

340 S.W.3d 444, 447–48 (Tex. 2011); see N.Y. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez,

799 S.W.2d 677, 679–80 (Tex. 1990) (citing N.E. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 200

S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966) (“In the absence of a special statute making an

interlocutory order appealable, a judgment must dispose of all issues and parties in

the case . . . to be final and appealable.”). An order denying a summary judgment

motion is not a final judgment and, absent certain exceptions not applicable here, is

not an appealable interlocutory order. See Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Cates, 927

S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. 1996); City of Houston v. Aster, L.P., 403 S.W.3d 354, 357

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. denied). Thus, we lack jurisdiction over

appellants’ attempted appeal of the trial court’s May 21, 2024 order. See In re M.G.,

No. 01–05–00426–CV, 2006 WL 1549754, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

June 8, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“When a party attempts to appeal a non-appealable

interlocutory order, appellate courts have no jurisdiction except to declare the

interlocutory nature of the order and to dismiss the appeal.”) (citations omitted).

On August 6, 2024, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants that their appeal

was subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction unless a written response was

provided within ten days demonstrating that this Court has jurisdiction over the

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). Appellants did not adequately respond.

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

P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Guerra, and Farris.