John F. Dietz v. 4J Energy, LLC and Energia Iner, S. DE R.L. DE CV ( 2023 )

Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 2, 2023.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-23-00101-CV
JOHN F. DIETZ, Appellant
V.
4J ENERGY, LLC AND ENERGIA INER, S. DE R.L. DE CV, Appellees
On Appeal from the 270th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2017-68508
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an attempted appeal from an order signed November 22, 2022.
Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con
Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When orders do not dispose of all pending
parties and claims, the orders remain interlocutory and unappealable until final
judgment is rendered unless a statutory exception applies. Bally Total Fitness Corp.
v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842
S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
The order appealed from severs multiple claims asserted between the two
appellees, but which were not prosecuted by or against appellant John F. Dietz, into
a new severed action and purports to be a final judgment in that severed action.
Appellant’s appeal, however, does not purport to be an appeal from the severed
action, but from the trial court proceeding that action originated from, Trial Court
Cause No. 2017-68508. This is the second attempt appellant has made to appeal
regarding that action. In our memorandum opinion dismissing the first appeal for
want of jurisdiction, we noted there was no appealable final judgment because two
claims remained pending: a claim by one appellee against the other for fraud, and a
cross-claim by appellant against appellee Energia Iner, S. de R.L. de CV for
reimbursement and indemnification. Dietz v. 4J Energy, LLC, No. 14-22-00215-
CV, 2022 WL 6603169, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 11, 2022, no
pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). The first claim is no longer part of the appealed-from
trial court proceeding. However, there is nothing in the record that indicates
appellant’s cross-claim has been resolved by the trial court. Because that cross-
claim apparently remains pending before the trial court, there remains no appealable
final judgment in this appeal. Bally Total Fitness Corp., 53 S.W.3d at 352; Jack B.
Anglin Co., 842 S.W.2d at 272.
On April 10, 2023, notification was transmitted to the parties of this court’s
intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless any demonstrated this
court has jurisdiction over this appeal on or before April 20, 2023. See Tex. R. App.
P. 42.3(a). No party has filed a response.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Hassan.
2