Unidivine, LLC v. Texas Champps Americana, Inc. and Jila Development, LLC Appeal from 211th District Court of Denton County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-17-00104-CV UNIDIVINE, LLC APPELLANT V. TEXAS CHAMPPS AMERICANA, INC. AND JILA DEVELOPMENT, LLC APPELLEES ---------FROM THE 211TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 2013-30200-211 ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------Appellant Unidivine, LLC attempts to appeal from an April 21, 2017 order granting the application for bill of review of Appellees Texas Champps Americana, Inc. and Jila Development, LLC. On April 26, 2017, we notified appellant of our concern that we may not have jurisdiction over this appeal 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. because the order does not appear to be a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order. We also informed appellant that unless it, or any party desiring to continue the appeal, filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal by May 8, 2017, the appeal may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. We have not received a response. Generally, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). An order granting a bill of review that sets aside a prior judgment without also disposing of all issues in the case on the merits is interlocutory and is not a final judgment appealable to the court of appeals or the supreme court. Kiefer v. Touris, 197 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2006); Tesoro Petroleum v. Smith, 796 S.W.2d 705, 705 (Tex. 1990). Because the trial court’s April 21, 2017 order does not dispose of all issues and parties in the case, it is not a final judgment, nor is it an appealable interlocutory order. See Kiefer, 197 S.W.3d at 302; Tesoro, 796 S.W.2d at 705. We therefore dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). PER CURIAM PANEL: MEIER, GABRIEL, and SUDDERTH, JJ. DELIVERED: June 1, 2017 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.