Structural Concrete Systems, LLC v. Texas First Rentals, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 19, 2025
• Docket: 04-24-00826-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-24-00826-CV

STRUCTURAL CONCRETE SYSTEMS, LLC, Appellant

v.

TEXAS FIRST RENTALS, LLC, Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2024CI00810 Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Lori Massey Brissette, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 19, 2025

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Appellant Structural Concrete Systems, LLC (“Structural Concrete”) attempts to appeal

the trial court’s order granting appellee Texas First Rentals, LLC’s (“Texas First”) motion for

partial summary judgment.

On January 13, 2025, we issued an order stating the order granting partial summary

judgment appeared to be interlocutory because a cause of action remained pending before the trial

court. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011) (“Unless a statute authorizes

an interlocutory appeal, appellate courts generally only have jurisdiction over final judgments.”); 04-24-00826-CV

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (holding a judgment or order is final

for purposes of appeal if it actually disposes of all pending parties and claims before the court).

Because we found no statute authorizing an interlocutory appeal of a partial summary judgment

on a breach of contract claim, we ordered Structural Concrete to show cause in writing why this

appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Saldaña v. Mata, No. 04-14-00010-

CV, 2014 WL 667612, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 19, 2014, no pet.) (dismissing appeal

of an interlocutory summary judgment order on breach of contract claim).

On February 3, 2025, Structural Concrete filed a written response conceding this court

lacks jurisdiction over its appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

-2-