Legenia Napier v. 8555 Laurens Lane LLD DBA Algarita Lakeside

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
• Decided: May 27, 2026
• Docket: 04-26-00325-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-26-00325-CV

Legenia NAPIER, Appellant

v.

8555 LAURENS LANE LLD DBA Algarita Lakeside, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2026-CV-00972 Honorable Cesar Garcia, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Irene Rios, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 27, 2026

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On April 17, 2026, appellant, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal, stating her intent

to appeal “due to dishonesty on the part of the other party . . . .” Appellant’s notice of appeal does

not reference a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order. “Unless specifically authorized

by statute, Texas appellate courts have jurisdiction only to review final judgments.” McFadin v.

Broadway Coffeehouse, LLC, 539 S.W.3d 278, 283 (Tex. 2018). The Texas Supreme Court

defines a judgment as final and appealable “if and only if either it actually disposes of all claims 04-26-00325-CV

and parties then before the court, regardless of its language, or it states with unmistakable clarity

that it is a final judgment as to all claims and all parties.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corporation, 39

S.W.3d 191, 192-93 (Tex. 2001). Here, appellant directs us to no final judgment. This court

ordered appellant to show cause in writing by May 7, 2026, why this appeal should not be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant has filed no response. Because neither a final

judgment nor an interlocutory order that may afford an authorized interlocutory appeal has been

signed in the underlying cause, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 1 See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3(a) (appellate court may dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction).

1 This dismissal does not prevent appellant from later pursuing a timely appeal from a final judgment in this case.

-2-