Opinion
No. 01-09-00584-CV
Opinion issued October 7, 2010.
On Appeal from the 152nd District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Case No. 2008-18599.
Panel consists of Justices KEYES, HIGLEY, and BLAND.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments and certain interlocutory orders identified by statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). "Only one final judgment shall be rendered in any cause except where it is otherwise specially provided by law." TEX. R. CIV. P. 301.
We recognize that a judgment need not recite the names of all parties or claims; the language of a summary judgment order cannot render the order interlocutory and unappealable when, on the record, it is a final disposition of the case. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. Here, however, none of the summary judgment orders dispose of the plaintiffs' claims against several parties, and the record does not contain an order dismissing the claims against those parties or severing those claims from the remainder of the cause.
The appellate record shows that the defendants in the trial court who continue to have claims against them include Attorney General Gregg Abbott; Alvin Dieuvan Nguyen; Dieuthao Khoa Nguyen; Marmic Properties, L.L.C.; Elias Khaimy, Agent; Fairpark Investments, L.P.; Constable Glenn Cheek, Precinct 5; J. Rodriguez, Unit 522; Gateway Real Estate; and Dennis Gates, Individually.
Because the summary judgment orders appealed from do not dispose of all parties and claims in the case, no final judgment currently exists. Nor is any order identified by statute as subject to interlocutory appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (Vernon 2008); see also TEX. R. CIV. P. 215.2(b)(8). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the sanctions order and must dismiss the appeal.
The appeal also requires dismissal because appellant Yahweh thru Yahweh Kingdom People via "YKP" Kingdom Corporation has failed to comply with our December 22, 2009 order requiring that it provide the name, address, and Texas State Bar number of its counsel of record. The Lloyds, who have filed documents purportedly on behalf of the appellant, are not licensed attorneys and thus are not authorized to represent Yahweh Kingdom People or any other entity or person besides themselves in legal proceedings. See Dell Dev. Corp. v. Best Indus. Uniform Supply Co., 743 S.W.2d 302, 303 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th] 1987, writ denied) ("Corporations may appear and be represented only by a licensed attorney."); see also Crain v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm., 11 S.W.3d 328, 332-34 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st] 1999, pet. denied) (explaining that person who is not licensed attorney may not represent other persons in legal matters); Globe Leasing, Inc. v. Engine Supply Mach. Serv., 437 S.W.2d 43, 45 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston [1st] 1969, no writ) (holding that even if corporation's president had given timely notice of appeal from judgment against corporation, such notice would be ineffective when president representing corporation was not licensed attorney and stating that "corporation may not appear in court through its officers who are not attorneys").
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).