Opinion
No. 05-09-01544-CV
Opinion issued May 7, 2010.
On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 08-08795-K.
Before Chief Justice WRIGHT and JUSTICES O'NEILL and MYERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Aaron Herman is appealing the trial court's order granting partial summary judgment in favor of Crowne Plaza Dallas Market Center. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
Background
Herman sued Crowne Plaza and an unknown bakery for negligence and product liability. The claims related to personal injuries Herman alleged he sustained while dining at Crowne Plaza. According to Herman, he was served an inedible foreign substance in a piece of cake that "harmed [him] physically, mentally, and economically." Thereafter, Crowne Plaza filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment. Herman did not respond to the motion and, after a hearing, the trial court granted Crowne Plaza's motion and signed an order that Herman take nothing on his claims against Crowne Plaza. Herman's claims against the unknown bakery remained pending.
Herman then filed a motion for new trial, an amended petition naming Willow Bend Bakery, and a notice of appeal in this Court. The trial court denied Herman's motion for new trial regarding his claims against Crowne Plaza and set Herman's claims against Willow Bend Bakery for trial. On April 13, 2010, Crowne Plaza filed a motion to dismiss in this Court, arguing the summary judgment order Herman is appealing is not final because Herman's claims against Willow Bend Bakery have not yet been disposed of. To date, Herman has not responded to Crowne Plaza's motion to dismiss.
Discussion
With few exceptions, an appeal may only be taken from a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When there has been no conventional trial on the merits, 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. Id. at 205.
Here, the order being appealed granted Crowne Plaza's motion for partial summary judgment. The motion addressed only Herman's claims against Crowne Plaza. The order does not dispose of Herman's claims against the bakery, nor does it state that it disposed of the case in its entirety. Because the trial court did not grant summary judgment on the entire case, the trial court's order is interlocutory and we do not have jurisdiction over the case. Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195 (holding that appeal may be taken only from a final judgment, unless statute permits appeal); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon 2008) (listing interlocutory orders from which interlocutory appeal may be taken). We grant Crowne Plaza's motion, and dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss as moot any pending motions.