Clarent Energy Services, Inc. and Graham Gilliam v. Leasing Ventures, LLC Appeal from 127th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued August 28, 2018. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-18-00036-CV ——————————— CLARENT ENERGY SERVICES, INC. AND GRAHAM GILLIAM, Appellants V. LEASING VENTURES, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 127th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2016-50734 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellants have attempted to appeal an order signed December 14, 2017, granting summary judgment in favor of Leasing Ventures, LLC, but also stating that if substantial progress, as defined in the parties’ settlement agreement, “has not been made on or before December 17, 2017, then all further matters in the case is abated until March 19, 2018, at which time Plaintiff may move for entry of a judgment against Defendants or the Parties may enter a non-suit of all claims and causes herein with prejudice.” This court issued an order noting that the order did not appear to be an appealable final judgment and advising the parties that the appeal might be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response demonstrating this court’s jurisdiction. Appellants responded that the order was a final judgment, or alternatively, asked the court to abate for entry of a final judgment. Appellee took the position that the judgment was not final, and it requested dismissal or abatement for entry of a final judgment. The court issued an order on June 21, 2018, abating the appeal for 30 days, and remanding to the trial court for entry of a final judgment. After the expiration of 30 days, the trial court clerk advised this court that no final judgment has been rendered. The appealed order does not contain language indicating it is a final judgment nor does it adjudicate all parties and claims. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001). Moreover, a final judgment cannot be conditional upon future or uncertain events. See Hinde v. Hinde, 701 S.W.2d 637, 639 (Tex. 1985). We have jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal only if authorized by statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014; Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 2 352, 352–53 (Tex. 1998). This order is not one for which interlocutory appeal is authorized. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Massengale. 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.
