Kachina Air, Inc., GAI Air, LLC F/K/A GSAIC, LLC, AWMR, LLC, AAW Investments, LLC, and Xian Hua "Aaron" Wang v. Vikor Scientific, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 4, 2025
• Docket: 09-25-00024-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00024-CV __________________

KACHINA AIR, INC., GAI AIR, LLC F/K/A GSAIC, LLC, AWMR, LLC, AAW INVESTMENTS, LLC AND XIAN HUA “AARON” WANG, Appellants

V.

VIKOR SCIENTIFIC, LLC, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 284th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 24-11-17079 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 15, 2024, Appellee, Vikor Scientific, LLC, filed an interlocutory

appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of a special appearance that Vikor filed

after it was joined as a third-party defendant in Creek Crossing Management, LLC’s

lawsuit against Kachina Air, Inc., GAI Air, LLC f/k/a GSAIC, LLC, AWMR, LLC,

AAW Investments, LLC and Xian Hua “Aaron” Wang (collectively, the “Kachina

Parties”), and that appeal was docketed as No. 09-24-00103-CV. On January 22,

1 2025, the Kachina Parties filed this appeal challenging the trial court’s summary

judgment ordering that the Kachina Parties take nothing from Vikor. 1 The records

and briefs were filed, and both causes were submitted by oral argument on

September 25, 2025.

In the related appeal, No. 09-24-00103-CV, we reversed the trial court’s

denial of Vikor’s special appearance, and we rendered judgment dismissing the

Kachina Parties’ claims against Vikor for want of personal jurisdiction. Because the

trial court lacked jurisdiction over Vikor, the summary judgment adjudicating the

Kachina Parties’ claims against Vikor is void. See Browning v. Placke, 698 S.W.2d

362, 363 (Tex. 1985) (“[A] judgment is void only when it is shown that the court

had no jurisdiction of the parties or property, no jurisdiction of the subject matter,

no jurisdiction to enter the particular judgment, or no capacity to act as a court.”).

Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment in cause no. 24-11-17079 is vacated for want

of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(e).

JUDGMENT VACATED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

KENT CHAMBERS Justice

1 The trial court severed the Kachina Parties’ claims against Vikor from the original action between Creek Crossing and the Kachina Parties (Trial Cause No. 22-06-07372-CV), thereby making the summary judgment in the severed cause (No. 24-11-17079) final and appealable. 2 Submitted on September 25, 2025 Opinion Delivered December 4, 2025

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.