APPELLANT v. APPELLEE (2013)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Appellant Rueben Mendoza attempts to appeal from an April 3, 2013 order granting Appellee Fort Worth Housing Authority's no-evidence motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss.   On April 9, 2013, we notified Mendoza of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the April 3, 2013 order is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order—it does not dispose of Ameritex Security, another defendant in the case.   We informed Mendoza that the appeal may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response by April 19, 2013, showing grounds for continuing the appeal.   Mendoza filed an amended notice of appeal but not a specific response to our jurisdictional inquiry.

Absent an interlocutory appeal that is specifically authorized by the constitution or a statute, an order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and parties.   Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex.2001).   Because the April 3, 2013 order did not dispose of the other defendant, it is not a final, appealable order.   See id.   Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.   See Tex.R.App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

FOOTNOTES

FN1. See Tex.R.App. P. 47.4..  FN1. See Tex.R.App. P. 47.4.

PER CURIAM