DEBRA A. TACKETT, Appellant v. CAREINGTON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, SUE PENTECOST, AND WILLIE A. BOOKER, JR., Appellees

DISMISSED; Opinion Filed July 21, 2008.
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-07-00863-CV
............................
DEBRA A. TACKETT, Appellant
V.
CAREINGTON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
SUE PENTECOST, AND WILLIE A. BOOKER, JR., Appellees
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 401-962-06
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Morris, FitzGerald, and Lang
Opinion By Justice Lang
        Debra A. Tackett appeals the trial court's “final” summary judgment granting the motions for final traditional and partial no-evidence summary judgment of Careington International Corporation, Sue Pentecost,   See Footnote 1  and Willie A. Booker, Jr.
        After reviewing the record, this Court questioned its jurisdiction over the appeal because the trial court's “final” summary judgment did not appear to dispose of all claims. Specifically, there was no order disposing of Tackett's claim against Booker for publishing allegedly defamatory statements to Mario Ornelas. This claim was set forth in Tackett's response to the motions for summary judgment, citing Ornelas's deposition testimony, and apparently premised upon Tackett's broad, general allegations in her original petition. Also, there was no order ruling on Careington, Pentecost, and Booker's objections to that claim.
        An appeal may be taken only from a final judgment, unless a statute specially authorizes an interlocutory appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 51.012, 51.014(a) (Vernon 1997 & Supp. 2007); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A judgment is final for purposes of an appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims before the trial court. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 192-93, 195.
        This Court requested that, by no later than June 30, 2008: (1) Tackett provide a supplemental clerk's record containing any orders of the trial court, not already a part of the clerk's record, disposing of Careington, Pentecost, and Booker's objections or Tackett's claim; or (2) the parties advise this Court if there were no such orders and provide any basis on which they believe this Court has jurisdiction. On July 3, 2008, Tackett filed an untimely response conceding: (1) there was no order ruling on Careington, Pentecost, and Booker's objections to her claim against Booker for publishing allegedly defamatory statements to Ornelas; and (2) the trial court's “final” summary judgment was not a final judgment. Tackett requested this Court to dismiss the appeal. Careington, Pentecost, and Booker have not responded.
        We conclude the trial court's “final” summary judgment is not a final, appealable order. Accordingly this Court does not have jurisdiction over Tackett's appeal.
        The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).
                                                          
                                                          DOUGLAS S. LANG
                                                          JUSTICE
070863F.P05
 
Footnote 1 Subsequent to the filing of Tackett's lawsuit, Pentecost was married and changed her last name to Sunstrum. The record also refers to Pentecost as “Karen Sue Pentecost” and “Sue Sunstrum.”