Summary
holding order that granted motion for summary judgment did not dispose of claims and was not final because it did not state it was final and did "not contain any decretal language specifying what damages, attorney's fees, or injunctive relief was awarded"
Summary of this case from In re M.A.G.Opinion
No. 05-12-01006-CV
10-09-2012
RAYMOND HENSHAW, Appellant v. TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION - CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, Appellee
DISMISS;
On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court
Grayson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 08-0797-059
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Francis and Lang-Miers
Opinion By Chief Justice Wright
By letter dated July 24, 2012, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal. Specifically, it appears there is no final judgment. We directed appellant to file a jurisdictional brief within ten days explaining how the Court has jurisdiction and cautioned him that failure to do so may result in dismissal of his appeal without further notice. As of today's date, appellant has not filed a jurisdictional brief.
Except in circumstances not applicable here, this Court has jurisdiction only over final judgments. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A final judgment is one that disposes of all pending parties and claims. Id. In its second amended petition, appellee sought actual and punitive damages, attorney's fees, and a permanent injunction for appellant's alleged housing discrimination practices. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 301.001 (West 2007). Appellee sought summary judgment on all its claims.
Appellant does not specify what he is appealing in his notice of appeal. The clerk's record contains an order granting appellee's motion for summary judgment signed on June 6, 2012. The body of the order states in its entirety as follows: On this day the Court considered Plaintiff Texas Workforce Commission - Civil Rights Division's Motion for Summary Judgment. After due consideration, the Court finds the motion meritorious. It is therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED.
The trial court's order does not contain any decretal language specifying what damages, attorney's fees, or injunctive relief was awarded. In addition, the order does not contain any language that it is intended to be a final and appealable order. It is unclear whether the trial court granted summary judgment as to liability only or as to liability and damages. For these reasons, we conclude there is no final and appealable order. Without an appealable order, this Court lacks jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
CAROLYN WRIGHT
CHIEF JUSTICE
121006F.P05
Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
RAYMOND HENSHAW, Appellant
V.
TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION - CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, Appellee
No. 05-12-01006-CV
Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court of Grayson County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 08- 0797-059).
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright, Justices Francis and Lang-Miers, participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
It is ORDERED that appellee, Texas Workforce Commission - Civil Rights Division, recover its costs of the appeal from appellant, Raymond Henshaw.
Judgment entered October 9, 2012.
CAROLYN WRIGHT
CHIEF JUSTICE