Jose Luis Alarcon v. Emilio Castillo, Individually and D/B/A Expert Rebar Services
This text of Jose Luis Alarcon v. Emilio Castillo, Individually and D/B/A Expert Rebar Services (Jose Luis Alarcon v. Emilio Castillo, Individually and D/B/A Expert Rebar Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
DISMISS and Opinion Filed June 28, 2016.
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-00436-CV
JOSE LUIS ALARCON, Appellant V. EMILIO CASTILLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A EXPERT REBAR SERVICES, Appellee
On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-10456
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Stoddart, and Whitehill Opinion by Justice Stoddart In a letter dated June 2, 2016, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over the appeal
because there did not appear to be a final judgment. We instructed appellant to file a letter brief
addressing our concern and gave appellee an opportunity to respond.
Generally, this Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and certain
interlocutory orders as permitted by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191,
195 (Tex. 2001). A final judgment is one that disposes of all pending parties and claims. See id.
Although a judgment following a trial on the merits is presumed to be final, there is no such
presumption of finality following a summary judgment. See id. at 199–200.
Appellee asserted counterclaims for damages and attorney’s fees. The trial court’s order
granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment states “[d]efendant’s claims for affirmative relief are still pending.” In his letter brief, appellant contends what remains is essentially a
motion for sanctions and that a pending motion for sanctions does not prevent a judgment from
being final. See Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith Southern Equip., Inc., 10 S.W.3d 308, 312 (Tex.
2000). The record before this Court, however, does not contain a motion for sanctions. The
record before this Court contains a judgment that, on its face, does not dispose of all claims.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
/Craig Stoddart/ CRAIG STODDART 160436F.P05 JUSTICE
–2– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
JOSE LUIS ALARCON, Appellant On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-16-00436-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-10456. Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. EMILIO CASTILLO, INDIVIDUALLY Justices Myers and Whitehill participating. AND D/B/A EXPERT REBAR SERVICES, Appellee
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
It is ORDERED that appellee EMILIO CASTILLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A EXPERT REBAR SERVICES recover his costs of this appeal from appellant JOSE LUIS ALARCON.
Judgment entered this 28th day of June, 2016.
–3–
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jose Luis Alarcon v. Emilio Castillo, Individually and D/B/A Expert Rebar Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-luis-alarcon-v-emilio-castillo-individually-and-dba-expert-rebar-texapp-2016.