Benita Bergman v. Kendrick Skipper d/b/a Chick-Fil-A at Magnolia Appeal from 284th District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-19-00216-CV __________________ BENITA BERGMAN, Appellant V. KENDRICK SKIPPER D/B/A CHICK-FIL-A AT MAGNOLIA, Appellee __________________ NO. 09-19-00217-CV __________________ BENITA BERGMAN, Appellant V. CHICK-FIL-A, INC., Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 284th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 18-07-09536-CV __________________________________________________________________ 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Benita Bergman filed notices of appeal from the trial court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of appellees. In each cause, the appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeals, in which the appellees assert that the orders are not appealable because (1) claims against other parties remain unresolved and (2) the orders do not contain unmistakable language of finality. A judgment is not final “unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it disposes of all claims and all parties.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001). We lack jurisdiction over appeals from interlocutory orders unless a statute specifically authorizes an appeal. See, e.g., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2018). We conclude that the trial court’s orders do not dispose of all parties and claims, and they do not contain unequivocal language indicating that the trial court intended its orders to be final. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205-06. We lack jurisdiction over these appeals, and we dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. APPEALS DISMISSED. _________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on August 21, 2019 Opinion Delivered August 22, 2019 Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ. 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.
