Claudia Islem Deciga v. Pavecon Ltd., Co. Appeal from 103rd District Court of Cameron County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-22-00064-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ CLAUDIA ISLEM DECIGA, Appellant, v. PAVECON LTD., CO. Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 103rd District Court of Cameron County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria Appellant Claudia Islem Deciga attempted to appeal the trial court’s order granting Pavecon Ltd., Co.’s motion for summary judgment in this case. Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that the order from which this appeal was taken was not a final appealable order. “[A]n order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and parties.” Lehmann v. Har- Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001). Pavecon Public Works GP LLC, Pavecon LTD, Do. and H-E-B, LP are each listed as defendants in the underlying cause, but the trial court’s order only granted summary judgment and dismissed Pavecon Public Works GP LLC and Pavecon Ltd., Co. Appellant filed responses to the defect notice, but the responses did not cure the defect; the jurisdictional defect of a no final, appealable order remains. Absent an appealable interlocutory order or final judgment, this Court has no jurisdiction over this appeal. See Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 S.W.3d 316, 319 n. 1 (Tex. 2007); Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. The Court, having considered the documents on file, both appellant and appellee’s responses and replies to the defect notice, and appellant’s failure to correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See id. R. 42.3(a),(c). NORA L. LONGORIA Justice Delivered and filed on the 5th day of May, 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.
