Rickye Henderson v. Schuh Family LP and Muayad Almahbobi

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 9, 2023
• Docket: 07-23-00040-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-23-00040-CV

RICKYE HENDERSON, APPELLANT

V.

MUAYAD ALMAHBOBI AND SCHUH FAMILY LP, APPELLEES

On Appeal from the 53rd District Court Travis County, Texas Trial Court No. D-1-GN-22-002051, Honorable Madeleine Connor, Presiding

May 9, 2023 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant, Rickye Henderson, appearing pro se, appeals from the trial court’s

Order Granting Defendant Schuh Family LP’s Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for

Summary Judgment.1 Pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss the interlocutory

1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. appeal for want of jurisdiction filed by Appellee, Schuh Family LP. We grant the motion

and dismiss the appeal.

In May 2022, Henderson sued Appellees, Muayad Almahbobi and Schuh Family,

for breach of contract and other claims related to a purported sublease of commercial

property. Appellees answered the suit. Schuh Family filed a counterclaim seeking

declaratory relief and attorney’s fees. Schuh Family later moved for summary judgment

on Henderson’s claims. On December 16, 2022, the trial court signed an order granting

Schuh Family’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing Henderson’s claims against

it. Henderson appealed the summary judgment order with Schuh Family’s counterclaim

and Henderson’s claims against Almahbobi still pending.

We have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a final judgment or from an

interlocutory order made immediately appealable by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con

Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex.

1998) (per curiam). “[W]hen there has not been a conventional trial on the merits, an

order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every

pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes

of all claims and all parties.” Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205. Here, the trial court’s summary

judgment order is not a final judgment as it does not include any finality language, nor

does it dispose of all pending parties and claims. Further, we have found no statutory

authority permitting its interlocutory appeal.

2 Schuh Family now moves to dismiss the interlocutory appeal for want of

jurisdiction. Henderson has filed a response to the motion, but failed to demonstrate

grounds for continuing the appeal.

Because Henderson has not presented this Court with a final judgment or

appealable order, we grant Schuh Family’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for

want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

Per Curiam