Francisco Castro v. Centurytel Wireless, Inc.

NUMBER 13-03-165-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________________ FRANCISCO CASTRO, Appellant, v. CENTURYTEL WIRELESS, INC., Appellee. ____________________________________________________________________ On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 of Hidalgo County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Francisco Castro, seeks to appeal an order granting a partial summary judgment in a bill of review proceeding. In the underlying proceeding, appellee, Centurytel Wireless, Inc. ("Centurytel"), filed a bill of review to set aside a default judgment in favor of appellant. The trial court signed a partial summary judgment in favor of Centurytel, and entered judgment that "the default judgment . . . and all matters in dispute. . . shall proceed to trial on the merits." This appeal ensued. Centurytel has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. We agree with Centurytel, and dismiss the appeal. We have no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a judgment that is not final. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A judgment is final if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record. Guajardo v. Conwell, 46 S.W.3d 862, 863-64 (Tex. 2001) (per curiam). A bill of review that sets aside a prior judgment, yet does not dispose of all the issues in the case, is interlocutory and not appealable. Jordan v. Jordan, 907 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam) (citing Tesoro Petroleum v. Smith, 796 S.W.2d 705, 705 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam)); Hartford Underwriters Ins. v. Mills, 110 S.W.3d 588, 591 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2003, no pet.); Mills v. Corvettes of Houston, Inc, 44 S.W.3d 197, 199 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.). The trial court in this case has ordered a trial on the merits, thus indicating that all issues are not resolved. See Jordan, 907 S.W.2d at 472. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See id. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM Opinion delivered and filed this the 20th day of November, 2003.