Joel D. Mallory v. J. P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Chase Home Finance, L.L.C. and Codilis & Stawiarski, P.C.--Appeal from 151st District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued June 13, 2013 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-12-00707-CV JOEL D. MALLORY, Appellant V. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CHASE HOME FINANCE, L.L.C., AND CODILIS & STAWIARSKI, P.C., Appellees On Appeal from the 151st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2010-64487 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Joel Mallory filed suit against appellees J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., as successor by merger to Chase Home Finance, L.L.C. ( J.P. Morgan Chase ) and Codilis & Stawiarski, P.C., asserting claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ( DTPA ) and the Texas Debt Collection Act ( TDCA ), among other claims. See generally TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. chapter 17 (West 2011 & Supp. 2012); TEX. FIN. CODE ANN. chapter 392 (West 2011). The trial court granted J.P. Morgan Chase s motion for summary judgment as to all claims asserted by Mallory against J.P. Morgan Chase. Subsequently, the trial court granted Codilis & Stawiarski s motion to dismiss Mallory s DTPA claims against it. After the trial court signed this second order, Mallory filed a notice of appeal. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). We have no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a judgment that is not final, unless there is specific statutory authority permitting an appeal before final judgment. See Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352 53 (Tex. 1998); Iacono v. Lyons, 6 S.W.3d 715, 716 17 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.). Here, the record reflects that no final judgment has been entered by the trial court in this case, because there is no order disposing of the remaining claims pending against Codilis & Stawiarski. On May 13, 2013, the appellees filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction because there is no final judgment. We requested appellant file a response to the motion, and appellant filed a response on May 30, 2013. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. The response does not demonstrate grounds for continuing the appeal. 2 Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss all pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justice Jennings, Brown, and Huddle. 3
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.
