grady-r-mitchell-v-popat-patel-individually-aka-paul-patel-kamu ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • NO.  07-11-0056-CV

                                                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                                           FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                                                     AT AMARILLO

                                                                          PANEL E

                                                                     JULY 13, 2011     ____________________________

                                                              GRADY R. MITCHELL,

                                                                                                                Appellant

                                                                                 v.

     

    POPAT PATEL, INDIVIDUALLY, A/K/A PAUL PATEL, KAMU PATEL,

    INDIVIDUALLY, SUNIL PATEL, INDIVIDUALLY, AND D/B/A SUPER 8 MOTEL,

    AND ANAND, INC.,

                                                                                                                Appellees                                                                              ___________________________

                         FROM THE 237TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

                                    NO. 2009-547,914; HON. LES HATCH, PRESIDING

    __________________________

    Order of Dismissal

    __________________________

    Before QUINN, C.J., HANCOCK, J., and BOYD, S.J.[1]

                Pending is the appeal of Grady R. Mitchell from a summary judgment executed by the trial court.  Mitchell sued Popat Patel, Kamu Patel, Sunil Patel, and Anand, Inc., asserting claims of premises liability.  Though Popat and Kamu Patel were granted summary judgment, Anand, Inc. was not. Furthermore, the record fails to show that the claims asserted by Mitchell against Popat and Kamu were severed from the suit.  So, what we have before us is an appeal from a judgment that fails to address all claims against all parties.  Consequently, the judgment is not final and appealable.  See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001) (stating that a judgment is final and appealable when it disposes of all claims against all parties).

                 Because a final judgment is a prerequisite to our having jurisdiction over an appeal, id. at 195, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

     

                                                                                        Brian Quinn

                                                                                        Chief Justice

     

     

     

     

     



    [1]John T. Boyd, Senior Justice, sitting by assignment.

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-11-00056-CV

Filed Date: 7/13/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/1/2016