Henshaw, Raymond v. Texas Workforce Commission - Civil Rights Division

Opinion

I)ISMISS; Opinion flied October 9, 2012

In The Qnurt nf ApirtIs Fjffjx 1itrirt nf xzu at Ia1ta No. 05-12-01006-CV

RAYMOND IIENSHAW, Appellant

V.

TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, Appellee -

On Appeal from the 59th .Judicial I)istrict Court Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 08-0797-059

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright and justices Francis and Lang-Miers Opinion By Chief Justice Wright

By letter dated July 24. 2012, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal.

Specifically, it appears there is no final judgment. We directed appellant to file ajurisdictional brief

within ten days explaining how the Court hasjurisdiction and cautioned him that failure to do so may

result in dismissal of his appeal without further notice. As of today’s date, appellant has not filed

a jurisdictional brief.

Except in circumstances not applicable here, this Court has jurisdiction only over final

judgments. See Lehman,? v. liar-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191. 195 (Tex. 2001). A final judgment is

one that disposes of all pending parties and claims. Id. In its second amended petition, appellee

sought actual and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and a permanent injunction for appellant’s alleged housing discrimination practices. See’ lEN. PROP. CODE ANN. § 301.001 (West 2007). Appeflee sought summary judgment on all its claims.

Appellant does not specify what he is appealing in his notice of appeal. The clerk’s record

contains an order granting appellee’s 1Th)tiOfl tor summary judgment signed on June 6. 2012. The

body of the order states in its entirety as lollows:

On this day the Court considered Plaintiff Texas Workforce Commission - Civil

Rights I)ivision’s Motion for Summary Judgment. After due consideration, the

Court finds the motion meritorious. It is therefore. ORDERED that Plaintiffs

Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED.

The trial court’s order does not contain any decretal language specifying what damages. attorney’s

fees, or injunctive relief was awarded. In addition, the order does not contain any language that it

is intended to he a final and appealable order. It is unclear whether the trial court granted summary

judgment as to liability only or as to liability and damages. For these reasons, we conclude there is

no final and appealable order. Without an appealable order, this Court lacks jurisdiction.

Accordingly. we dismiss the appeal. See TEN. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

—

/ / /2 2 AROLN WRIGH”l CIIILF JUSTICE

121 006F.P05

_2_ Inairt uf Appeals Fiftl 1i6trict jif exas at 1atla

JUDGMENT RAYMONI) 1-IENSIIAW. Appellant Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court of Grayson County. Texas. (TrCt.No. 08- No. 05-12-01 006-CV V. 0797-059. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION Justices Francis and Lang-Miers, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISiON. Appellee participating.

Based on the Courts opinion of this date. the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORI)ERED that appellee. Texas Workforce Commission - Civil Rights Division, recover its costs of the appeal from appellant, Raymond I-Ienshaw.

Judgment entered October 9. 2012.

CAROl YN WRIGHT (1 1ILj ILS fIL