Katharine Ehresman v. LF Technology Development Corporation Limited; TECX Academy Austin, Inc.; Starstone Specialty Insurance Company; and, Individually, Alexander Greystoke; Patricio Lebrija; John McLaughlin; Lyanne Millhouse; Eli Rabinowitz; Simon Holden; Michael Culhane; Oscar Ramos; Susan Strasberg; Chris Nichols; Michael Casey; and John Doe(s) 1-20 Appeal from 345th District Court of Travis County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-22-00433-CV Katharine Ehresman, Appellant v. LF Technology Development Corporation Limited; TECX Academy Austin, Inc.; Starstone Specialty Insurance Company; and, Individually, Alexander Greystoke; Patricio Lebrija; John McLaughlin; Lyanne Millhouse; Eli Rabinowitz; Simon Holden; Michael Culhane; Oscar Ramos; Susan Strasberg; Chris Nichols; Michael Casey; and John Doe(s) 1-20, Appellees FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-GN-20-001996, THE HONORABLE MADELEINE CONNOR, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Katharine Ehresman filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s June 15, 2022 “Order Granting Named Defendants’ No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment.” Upon initial review, the Clerk of this Court sent Ehresman a letter informing her that this Court appears to lack jurisdiction over the appeal because our jurisdiction is limited to appeals in which there exists a final or appealable judgment or order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.012; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (explaining that appeal generally may only be taken from final judgment that disposes of all pending parties and claims in record unless statute provides for interlocutory appeal). In this case, the trial court’s order only disposes of Ehresman’s claims against some, but not all, of the defendants, and an order granting summary judgment in favor of only some of multiple defendants is not an appealable interlocutory order. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998) (“Appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction.”); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014 (specifically permitting appeal of various interlocutory orders but not permitting appeal from grant of partial summary judgment). The Clerk requested a response on or before October 28, 2022, informing this Court of any basis that exists for jurisdiction. Ehresman failed to file any response. Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). __________________________________________ Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Smith Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: November 18, 2022 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
