Shuny Wang v. Peng Zhang

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 14, 2023
• Docket: 01-23-00580-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued November 14, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00580-CV ——————————— SHUNYI WANG AND A PLUS WIRE MESH COMPANY, Appellants V. PENG ZHANG, Appellee

On Appeal from the 129th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2020-43168

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, Shunyi Wang and A Plus Wire Mesh Company (collectively,

“appellants”), have filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s July 10, 2023

interlocutory order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee, Peng Zhang.

We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. In their first amended petition, appellants brought claims against Zhang and

others for conversion, conspiracy, tortious interference with an existing contract, and

negligence. Zhang answered, generally denying the allegations in appellants’

petition. Zhang also brought counterclaims against appellants for assault, invasion

of privacy, conversion, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.

Zhang then moved for summary judgment on appellants’ claims against him

for conversion, conspiracy, tortious interference with an existing contract, and

negligence, asserting that no evidence supported appellants’ claims.

On July 10, 2023, the trial court granted Zhang summary judgment on

appellants’ claims against him, ordering that appellants take nothing on their claims

against Zhang and dismissing appellants’ claims against Zhang with prejudice.

“[C]ourts always have jurisdiction to determine their own jurisdiction.”

Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 146 n.14 (Tex. 2012) (internal

quotations omitted); see also Royal Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Ragsdale, 273 S.W.3d 759,

763 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (jurisdiction fundamental in

nature and cannot be ignored). If this case is an appeal over which we have no

jurisdiction, the appeal must be dismissed. V.I.P. Royal Palace, LLC v. Hobby Event

Ctr. LLC, No. 01-18-00621-CV, 2020 WL 3579563, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] July 2, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.); Ragsdale, 273 S.W.3d at 763.

2 Generally, this Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments

and specific interlocutory orders that the Texas Legislature has designated as

appealable orders. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.012; CMH Homes

v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447–48 (Tex. 2011); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE ANN. § 51.014 (authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders). A

judgment issued without a conventional trial is final for appeal only if it: (1) actually

disposes of all claims and parties then before the court, regardless of its language or

(2) states with “unmistakable clarity” that it is a final judgment as to all claims and

all parties. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 192–93, 200, 204 (Tex.

2001).

Here, the trial court’s July 10, 2023 summary-judgment order does not

actually dispose of all claims against all parties. The trial court’s order only granted

summary judgment on appellants’ claims against Zhang and only dismissed

appellants’ claims against Zhang with prejudice. At the very least, Zhang’s

counterclaims against appellants remain pending in the trial court.

Additionally, the trial court’s July 10, 2023 summary-judgment order does not

contain finality language that could turn an otherwise interlocutory order into a final

judgment. See In re Elizondo, 544 S.W.3d 824, 828–29 (Tex. 2018). The order does

not claim to be anything other than an interlocutory-summary-judgment order

resolving only appellants’ claims against Zhang. See Banda v. Herba Ricemills,

3 S.L.V., No. 01-19-00802-CV, 2020 WL 5552461, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] Sept. 17, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).

On October 19, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants that we lacked

jurisdiction over their appeal and directed appellants that, unless a response was

provided within ten days, in writing, demonstrating that this Court has jurisdiction

over the appeal, the appeal would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). Appellants did not adequately respond.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Hightower and Countiss.