Philip Hearl Thompson Hamilton v. John Jensen, Jensen & Jensen, P.C., Donald C. Nemec, Kristina Whittenburg, and Law Office of K.R. Whittenburg P.L.L.C.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 14, 2023
• Docket: 02-23-00324-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-23-00324-CV ___________________________

PHILIP HEARL THOMPSON HAMILTON, Appellant

V.

JOHN JENSEN, JENSEN & JENSEN, P.C., DONALD C. NEMEC, KRISTINA WHITTENBURG, AND LAW OFFICE OF K.R. WHITTENBURG P.L.L.C., Appellees

On Appeal from the 342nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 342-332546-22

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Philip Hearl Thompson Hamilton attempts to appeal from the trial

court’s orders granting summary judgment that dismissed Hamilton’s claims against

Appellees John Jensen, Jensen & Jensen, P.C., Kristina Whittenburg, and Law Office

of K.R. Whittenburg, P.L.L.C. On October 9, 2023, we notified the parties of our

concern that we may not have jurisdiction over this appeal because the trial court’s

orders do not appear to be a final judgment or appealable interlocutory orders. We

informed them that unless any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response

with the court on or before October 19, 2023, showing grounds for continuing the

appeal, we might dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). We

received no response.

We have jurisdiction to consider appeals only from final judgments and from

certain interlocutory orders made immediately appealable by statute. See Lehmann v.

Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (stating that “the general rule, with a

few mostly statutory exceptions, is that an appeal may be taken only from a final

judgment”); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (delineating

interlocutory orders from which a party may appeal). Unless a statutory exception

applies, an order that does not dispose of all pending parties and claims remains

interlocutory and unappealable until the trial court signs a final judgment. See

Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195; City of Blue Mound v. Sw. Water Co., No. 02-13-00255-CV,

2013 WL 4679953, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 29, 2013, no pet.).

2 Here, the trial court’s orders granting summary judgment are not final and

appealable because they do not dispose of the claims pending against Appellee

Donald C. Nemec, and no statutory exception applies to allow for an interlocutory

appeal in this case. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

/s/ Brian Walker

Brian Walker Justice

Delivered: December 14, 2023