betty-domingo-v-cindy-skidmore-donna-walker-estella-barron-brenda ( 2011 )

NO. 07-09-0392-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

APRIL 11, 2011

______________________________

BETTY DOMINGO, APPELLANT

V.

CINDY SKIDMORE, DONNA WALKER, ESTELLA BARRON,

BRENDA MITCHELL, GINA SCHULTZ, SHARLA PIERCE, AND

LGROUP, A TEXAS GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, APPELLEES

_________________________________

FROM THE 237TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2006-535,854; HONORABLE LES HATCH, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and  HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

            Appellant, Betty Domingo, brings this appeal contending the trial court erred by entering judgment in favor of Appellees, Cindy Skidmore, Donna Walker, Estella Barron, Brenda Mitchell, Gina Schultz, and Sharla Pierce, following a jury trial.  For the reasons to follow, we order Domingo to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Background Facts[1]

            On January 16, 2007, in trial court cause number 2006-535,854, the trial court signed and entered an order granting Mitchell's motion for summary judgment as to Domingo's breach of contract cause of action.  The same day, the trial court signed and entered an order severing all other claims into a separate action, with a "new cause number" on the docket of the trial court, thereby making its January 16^th summary judgment order a final and thus, appealable order.  On May 21, 2008, we reversed the order of the trial court and remanded Domingo's breach of contract cause of action against Mitchell to the trial court for further proceedings. 

            Although the clerk's record does not contain a copy of an order consolidating the severed claims back into the underlying cause of action, the docket sheet appearing at page 2 of the clerk's record does reflect that an order consolidating cause number 2006-535,854 and cause number 2006-535,854-A[2] was signed on February 6, 2009.  On October 26, 2009, cause number 2006-535,854 was presented to a jury.  Based upon the jury's verdict, on November 20, 2009, the trial court entered a judgment that Domingo take nothing by this suit as to Cindy Skidmore, Donna Walker, Estella Barron, Brenda Mitchell, Gina Schultz, and Sharla Pierce. Domingo has appealed that judgment. That judgment does not, however, address Domingo's claims against the LGroup, a Texas general partnership. 

Interlocutory Appeal

            At the outset, this Court is obliged to determine, sua sponte, issues affecting our jurisdiction over an appeal.  New York Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d 677, 678 (Tex. 1990).  As a general rule, a judgment must be final before it can be appealed. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex 2001).  A judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it disposes of all parties and issues.  North E. Indep. School Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966).

            Because the judgment does not address Domingo's claims against the LGroup, this appeal appears to be interlocutory. Accordingly, the Court directs Domingo to show cause, on or before April 26, 2011, why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).   

                                                                                      Per Curiam

---

[1]Because the background facts of this case are more fully set forth in the opinion of this Court entered in cause number 07-07-0038-CV, we make reference only to those facts pertinent to this order. 

[2]Although we have no indication what the pleadings were in cause number 2006-535,854-A, we assume they were the claims previously severed out of cause number 2006-535,854 on January 16, 2007.