Opinion
13-21-00211-CV
03-24-2022
ROBERTO TLALOLINI, Appellant, v. REMAX ELITE AND VICTOR F. MARTINEZ, Appellees.
On appeal from County Court of Law No. 6 of Hidalgo County, Texas.
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DORI CONTRERAS, Chief Justice
Appellant Roberto Tlalolini attempted to appeal the trial court's order granting appellee ReMax Elite's (ReMax) motion for summary judgment in this breach of contract case. Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that the order from which this appeal was taken was not a final appealable order. "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 v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001). Victor F. Martinez and ReMax are both listed as plaintiffs in the underlying cause, but the trial court's order only granted summary judgment as to ReMax.
The Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See id. R. 42.3(a). Appellant did not respond to the Court's notice.
Absent an appealable interlocutory order or final judgment, this Court has no jurisdiction over this appeal. See Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 S.W.3d 316, 319 n.1 (Tex. 2007); Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's failure to correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See id. R. 42.3(a), (c).