Patricia O'Linda Scott v. Miguel Angel Mairena; Serpro Logistics; Neuse Management LLC US DOT 1391104, d/b/a Neuse Management Transport; and Edwin Hernandez Appeal from 342nd District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-16-00270-CV PATRICIA O’LINDA SCOTT APPELLANT V. MIGUEL ANGEL MAIRENA; SERPRO LOGISTICS; NEUSE MANAGEMENT LLC US DOT 1391104, D/B/A NEUSE MANAGEMENT TRANSPORT; AND EDWIN HERNANDEZ APPELLEES ---------FROM THE 342ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 342-277174-15 ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------Appellant Patricia O’Linda Scott attempts to appeal from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees Serpro Logistics (Serpro) 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. and Neuse Management, LLC US DOT 1391104, d/b/a Neuse Management Transport (Neuse). Despite Appellant’s assertion that summary judgment was granted for all defendants and that the judgment is therefore final, the summary judgment order states that it is a final judgment only as to Serpro and Neuse. Other defendants remain in the case pending in the trial court. Accordingly, on August 1, 2016, this court notified Appellant of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the order does not appear to be final or an appealable interlocutory order. We informed Appellant that the appeal would be subject to dismissal absent a response from Appellant or another party showing grounds for continuing the appeal. We have received no response. Consequently, because this interlocutory summary judgment is not appealable, and the trial court has not yet disposed of the remaining parties, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.2 2 See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (West Supp. 2016) (listing types of appealable interlocutory orders); Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (stating that generally appeal may be taken only from final judgment and that judgment is final and appealable if it disposes of all parties and all issues); see also Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); see also Scott v. Serpro Logistics, No. 02-15-00278-CV, 2015 WL 5893234, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 8, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing Appellant’s prior appeal of prior interlocutory summary judgment). 2 PER CURIAM PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ. DELIVERED: August 31, 2016 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.
