Komatsu Financial Limited Partnership v. Mammoth Rental and Supply, LLC Matthew Mahone And Oryx Oilfield Services, LLC
This text of Komatsu Financial Limited Partnership v. Mammoth Rental and Supply, LLC Matthew Mahone And Oryx Oilfield Services, LLC (Komatsu Financial Limited Partnership v. Mammoth Rental and Supply, LLC Matthew Mahone And Oryx Oilfield Services, LLC) 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
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-23-00422-CV ___________________________
KOMATSU FINANCIAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellant
V.
MAMMOTH RENTAL AND SUPPLY, LLC; MATTHEW MAHONE; AND ORYX OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, Appellees
On Appeal from the 153rd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 153-329332-21
Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION
Generally, this court has jurisdiction only over final judgments and
interlocutory orders from which an appeal is expressly authorized by statute. See Tex.
Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 51.012, 51.014(a); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39
S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Here, Appellant Komatsu Financial Limited Partnership
attempts to appeal from the trial court’s October 13, 2023 order denying its motion
for summary judgment. We notified the parties in our November 8, 2023 letter that
“[t]he court is concerned it may not have jurisdiction over this appeal from the trial
court’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support
Thereof, because it does not appear to be a final judgment or an appealable
interlocutory order.” We further stated that unless appellant or any party desiring to
continue the appeal filed with this court, on or before Tuesday, November 28, 2023, a
response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, this appeal could be dismissed
for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. We received no response.
Because the order from which Appellant attempts to appeal is neither a final
judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Kaithackal v. Mary Kay, Inc., No. 05-23-
00568-CV, 2023 WL 7449948, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 10, 2023, no pet. h.)
(mem. op.) (dismissing attempted appeal from denial of motion for summary judgment).
Per Curiam
Delivered: January 4, 2024
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Komatsu Financial Limited Partnership v. Mammoth Rental and Supply, LLC Matthew Mahone And Oryx Oilfield Services, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/komatsu-financial-limited-partnership-v-mammoth-rental-and-supply-llc-texapp-2024.