Full Opinion

NUMBER 13-26-00394-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ JP LYNX CAPITAL DEVELOPMENTS, LLC, ET AL., Appellant, v. ROTU INVESTMENTS, LLC, ET AL., Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE 92ND DISTRICT COURT OF HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Peña, West, and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña This matter is before the Court on the Court’s own motion. On May 18, 2026, appellants JP Lynx Capital Developments, LLC and Jose Pedraza Jr. filed a notice of appeal attempting to appeal an order entitled “Final Judgment” signed on April 17, 2026, in trial court cause no. C-4449-22-A. Upon review of the documents before the Court, despite bearing the name “Final Judgment,” it appears that the order from which this appeal was taken was not a final appealable order. “[A]n order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and parties.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001). Upon review of the record, it appears that some parties and claims to the underlying litigation remain pending before the trial court; specifically, there appears to be no resolution of the claims brought by Rojo Investments, LLC in plaintiffs’ first amended original petition. Based on the items in the appellate record, it appears there is not yet a final, appealable judgment. Furthermore, on June 30, 2026, the trial court granted a motion for new trial and vacated the order entitled “Final Judgment” signed on April 17, 2026. Accordingly, on August 3, 2026, the Clerk of the Court notified appellants that it appears there is no final, appealable order. The Clerk of the Court also notified appellants that if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of the notice, the appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3 (b), (c). To date, appellants failed to cure the defect and have not otherwise responded to the clerk’s notices; accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. L. ARON PEÑA JR. Justice Delivered and filed on the 19th day of August, 2026. 2