Steven Morvay, Directly and Derivatively of Bloomfield Knoble, Inc. v. Bloomfield Knoble, Inc., Eric Hirschhorn & Christopher Weatherly

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 18, 2018
• Docket: 05-18-00616-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismiss and Opinion Filed July 18, 2018

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-00616-CV

STEVEN MORVAY, DIRECTLY AND DERIVATIVELY OF BLOOMFIELD KNOBLE, INC., Appellant V. BLOOMFIELD KNOBLE, INC., ERIC HIRSCHHORN, AND CHRISTOPHER WEATHERLY, Appellees

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-15425

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Evans, and Justice Brown Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Before the Court is appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal and appellant’s response.

Appellee asserts this Court lacks jurisdiction because the trial court’s judgment is not final because

it does not dispose of their counterclaim for attorney’s fees.

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

interlocutory orders as permitted by statute. See McFadin v. Broadway Coffeehouse, LLC, 539

S.W.3d 278, 283 (Tex. 2018); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2017).

A final judgment is one that disposes of all pending parties and claims. See Lehmann v. Har-Con

Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Appellees filed two separate motions for summary judgment — one addressing appellant’s

claims in his individual capacity and the other addressing appellant’s shareholder derivative

claims. In their motions, appellees sought summary judgment on appellant’s claims only. The

trial court granted the motions and ordered that appellant, in both his capacities, take nothing on

all causes of action against appellees. Neither the motions for summary judgment nor the trial

court’s order granting the motions addressed appellees’ counterclaim for attorney’s fees. As such,

the counterclaim remains pending before the trial court.

In his response, appellant states after the trial court signed the summary judgment order,

the trial court cancelled all scheduled hearings and “closed” the matter. He filed a notice of appeal

to “preserve his rights.” Appellant does not take a position on the finality of the summary judgment

order.

Because all claims have not been disposed of and the trial court’s order is not otherwise

appealable, this Court lacks jurisdiction. See McFadin, 539 S.W.3d at 283; Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d

at 195. Accordingly, we grant appellees’ motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a).

/Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE

180616F.P05

–2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

STEVEN MORVAY, DIRECTLY On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District AND DERIVATIVELY OF Court, Dallas County, Texas BLOOMFIELD KNOBLE, INC., Appellant Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-15425. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. No. 05-18-00616-CV V. Justices Evans and Brown participating.

BLOOMFIELD KNOBLE, INC., ERIC HIRSCHHORN, AND CHRISTOPHER WEATHERLY, Appellees

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellees BLOOMFIELD KNOBLE, INC., ERIC HIRSCHHORN, AND CHRISTOPHER WEATHERLY recover their costs of this appeal from appellant STEVEN MORVAY, DIRECTLY AND DERIVATIVELY OF BLOOMFIELD KNOBLE, INC.

Judgment entered July 18, 2018.

–3–