NC an MI, LLC v. EGR Construction, Inc

Tex. App. Ct., 1st Dist. (Houston)

NC an MI, LLC v. EGR Construction, Inc

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)·Decided May 12, 2026·No. 01-25-01084-CV·Published

Opinion

Opinion issued May 12, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

Compliance Hearing;” (4) a December 16, 2025 “Order Denying [Appellants’] Request for a Jury Trial;” and (5) a December 18, 2025 “Trial Preparation Order.” On December 31, 2026, the Court issued an order stating that none of the orders appealed were either a final judgment or appealable interlocutory orders. The Court requested a response by January 12, 2026 establishing that this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal.

On January 12, 2026, appellant requested an extension of time to file its response, which the Court granted until January 22, 2026. No response was filed. Appellant filed a second notice of appeal on February 2, 2026, appealing an alleged order by the trial court signed on January 2, 2026. In the letter of assignment of this notice of appeal, the trial court clerk included an order for entry of judgment signed January 19, 2026, indicating that no final judgment had yet been signed.

On February 17, 2026, a clerk’s record was filed, containing no final judgment. On February 18, 2026, appellant filed an “amended notice of appeal” from the trial court’s January 19, 2026 order for entry of judgment. On February 24, 2026, appellee filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that appellant has not established that this Court has jurisdiction, and asking this Court to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The orders appellant is attempting to appeal are interlocutory. This Court generally has jurisdiction only over final judgments and those interlocutory orders the Legislature has expressly permitted appeal. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011). None of the orders appellant is attempting to appeal are final judgments or appealable interlocutory orders. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200–01 (Tex. 2001) (holding that judgment or order is final for purpose of appeal if it unequivocally states an intention to issue final judgment or if it disposes of every pending claim and party); CMH Homes, 340 S.W.3d at 447 (permitting appeal of interlocutory orders only if permitted by statute). Because appellant has not established that the orders appealed are either final judgments or appealable interlocutory orders, appellant has not established that this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal.

Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion and dismiss this appeal. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.3, 43.2(f). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Guiney.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion issued May 12, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

Compliance Hearing;” (4) a December 16, 2025 “Order Denying [Appellants’] Request for a Jury Trial;” and (5) a December 18, 2025 “Trial Preparation Order.” On December 31, 2026, the Court issued an order stating that none of the orders appealed were either a final judgment or appealable interlocutory orders. The Court requested a response by January 12, 2026 establishing that this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal.

On January 12, 2026, appellant requested an extension of time to file its response, which the Court granted until January 22, 2026. No response was filed. Appellant filed a second notice of appeal on February 2, 2026, appealing an alleged order by the trial court signed on January 2, 2026. In the letter of assignment of this notice of appeal, the trial court clerk included an order for entry of judgment signed January 19, 2026, indicating that no final judgment had yet been signed.

On February 17, 2026, a clerk’s record was filed, containing no final judgment. On February 18, 2026, appellant filed an “amended notice of appeal” from the trial court’s January 19, 2026 order for entry of judgment. On February 24, 2026, appellee filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that appellant has not established that this Court has jurisdiction, and asking this Court to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The orders appellant is attempting to appeal are interlocutory. This Court generally has jurisdiction only over final judgments and those interlocutory orders the Legislature has expressly permitted appeal. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011). None of the orders appellant is attempting to appeal are final judgments or appealable interlocutory orders. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200–01 (Tex. 2001) (holding that judgment or order is final for purpose of appeal if it unequivocally states an intention to issue final judgment or if it disposes of every pending claim and party); CMH Homes, 340 S.W.3d at 447 (permitting appeal of interlocutory orders only if permitted by statute). Because appellant has not established that the orders appealed are either final judgments or appealable interlocutory orders, appellant has not established that this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal.

Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion and dismiss this appeal. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.3, 43.2(f). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Guiney.

NC an MI, LLC v. EGR Construction, Inc, (Tex. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

NC an MI, LLC v. EGR Construction, Inc (NC an MI, LLC v. EGR Construction, Inc) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related