Opinion
14-23-00764-CV
02-22-2024
MRUGESH PARIKH, Appellant v. JERRY JOHNSON, Appellee
On Appeal from the 334th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020-49935-A.
Panel Consists of Jewell, Spain, and Wilson, Justices.
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Before the court is a motion filed by appellee Jerry Johnson to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction, as well as a motion filed by appellant Mrugesh Parikh to vacate portions of a trial court order.
This appeal involves two cases before the trial court: the original underlying case (cause number 2020-49935) and the severed case (cause number 2020-49935-A), respectively, the "Original Case" and the "Severed Case." The full scope of the Original Case, which is not before us on appeal, is unclear, but appears to have involved claims by Daniel Fields against appellant. On February 24, 2023, appellant filed third-party claims against appellee and several other individuals. With regard to appellee, appellant claimed appellee wrongfully helped prepare an affidavit used against appellant in the Original Case.
On March 28, 2023, appellee filed a motion seeking dismissal of the claims against him pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation Act, as well as attorney's fees, costs, and additional sanctions pursuant to the TCPA. On May 25, 2023, the trial court signed an order dismissing all of appellant's claims against appellee pursuant to the TCPA and reserved the issues of attorney's fees, costs, and sanctions for a later date.
On August 23, 2023, the trial court signed an order declaring appellee was entitled to recover $47,381.25 in attorney's fees and court costs from appellant. The order further noted that "[a]ll relief not granted on [appellee's m]otion is denied and this order is final." On August 29, 2023, appellee filed a motion to sever the portion of the Original Case that comprised appellant's claims against him, and implicitly the relief appellee obtained in association with those claims. The trial court granted appellee's motion to sever in an order signed September 18, 2023. That order, which created the Severed Case (cause number 2020-49935-A), specifically declared that the Severed Case would include among its documents an order dated August 23, 2023 that was described as an "Order Signed Awarding Attorney Fees." A notice of appeal was filed on October 16, 2023 in cause number 2020-49935-A.
We acknowledge this does not appear to be a final judgment in the Original Case, as there is no indication that the trial court intended to resolve any claims advanced by Daniel Fields in this order, nor is there any indication that Daniel Fields's claims had been fully resolved as of August 23, 2023. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001).
In his motion to dismiss, appellee contends the severance order did not create a final judgment between him and appellant in the Severed Case. While the August 23rd Order states that it is a "final order," it does not state it is a final judgment. Even so, we nevertheless conclude that there is a final judgment in the Severed Case. As the Texas Supreme Court has noted, an order can comprise a final judgment that disposes of all remaining parties and claims in a case "even if the order does not say that it is final, indeed, even if it says it is not final." Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 204 (Tex. 2001). Here, regardless of its language, the severance order signed September 18, 2023 resolved all claims of all parties in the Severed Case. See Gruss v. Gallagher, 680 S.W.3d 642, 650 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2023, no pet.) (acknowledging that one way "an order issued without a conventional trial on the merits is final for purposes of appeal [is] if it . . . actually disposes of all claims and all parties before the court"). Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Accordingly, this court has appellate jurisdiction in the appeal from the judgment in the Severed Case. Thus, dismissal of this appeal for want of jurisdiction is not proper.
Appellant's motion to vacate portions of a trial court's order contests an alleged final judgment in the Original Case. Appellant's motion, which was filed in an appeal from the final judgment in the Severed Case, asks this court to review trial-court rulings that are not before this court in the appeal of the Severed Case. We have no jurisdiction over the Original Case.
For the reasons discussed above, we deny appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal of the Severed Case and dismiss for want of jurisdiction appellant's motion to vacate portions of the trial court's order in the Original Case.