Steven Morvay, Directly and Derivatively of Bloomfield Knoble, Inc. v. Bloomfield Knoble, Inc., Eric Hirschhorn & Christopher Weatherly ( 2018 )

Dismiss and Opinion Filed July 18, 2018
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-18-00616-CV
STEVEN MORVAY, DIRECTLY AND DERIVATIVELY
OF BLOOMFIELD KNOBLE, INC., Appellant
V.
BLOOMFIELD KNOBLE, INC., ERIC HIRSCHHORN, AND
CHRISTOPHER WEATHERLY, Appellees
On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-15425
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Evans, and Justice Brown
Opinion by Chief Justice Wright
Before the Court is appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal and appellant’s response.
Appellee asserts this Court lacks jurisdiction because the trial court’s judgment is not final because
it does not dispose of their counterclaim for attorney’s fees.
Generally, this Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and certain
interlocutory orders as permitted by statute. See McFadin v. Broadway Coffeehouse, LLC, 539
S.W.3d 278, 283 (Tex. 2018); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2017).
A final judgment is one that disposes of all pending parties and claims. See Lehmann v. Har-Con
Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).
Appellees filed two separate motions for summary judgment — one addressing appellant’s
claims in his individual capacity and the other addressing appellant’s shareholder derivative
claims. In their motions, appellees sought summary judgment on appellant’s claims only. The
trial court granted the motions and ordered that appellant, in both his capacities, take nothing on
all causes of action against appellees. Neither the motions for summary judgment nor the trial
court’s order granting the motions addressed appellees’ counterclaim for attorney’s fees. As such,
the counterclaim remains pending before the trial court.
In his response, appellant states after the trial court signed the summary judgment order,
the trial court cancelled all scheduled hearings and “closed” the matter. He filed a notice of appeal
to “preserve his rights.” Appellant does not take a position on the finality of the summary judgment
order.
Because all claims have not been disposed of and the trial court’s order is not otherwise
appealable, this Court lacks jurisdiction. See McFadin, 539 S.W.3d at 283; Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d
at 195. Accordingly, we grant appellees’ motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.
42.3(a).
/Carolyn Wright/
CAROLYN WRIGHT
CHIEF JUSTICE
180616F.P05
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
STEVEN MORVAY, DIRECTLY On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District
AND DERIVATIVELY OF Court, Dallas County, Texas
BLOOMFIELD KNOBLE, INC., Appellant Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-15425.
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright.
No. 05-18-00616-CV V. Justices Evans and Brown participating.
BLOOMFIELD KNOBLE, INC.,
ERIC HIRSCHHORN, AND
CHRISTOPHER WEATHERLY,
Appellees
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
It is ORDERED that appellees BLOOMFIELD KNOBLE, INC., ERIC HIRSCHHORN,
AND CHRISTOPHER WEATHERLY recover their costs of this appeal from appellant STEVEN
MORVAY, DIRECTLY AND DERIVATIVELY OF BLOOMFIELD KNOBLE, INC.
Judgment entered July 18, 2018.
–3–