Emmanuel Kayitare v. Pham Thai Hien Nguyen
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)
Date FiledAugust 27, 2026
Docket02-26-00239-CV
StatusPublished
๐ฐ News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-26-00239-CV
___________________________
EMMANUEL KAYITARE, Appellant
V.
PHAM THAI HIEN NGUYEN, Appellee
On Appeal from the 96th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 096-356270-24
Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Walker, J.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
By amended petition, Appellant Emmanual Kayitare sued Appellee Pham Thai
Hien Nguyen and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The trial court abated the case
against Liberty and later dismissed the claim against Nguyen without prejudice.
Kayitare appeals from the dismissal order. The dismissal order does not specifically
address the abated claim against Liberty and does not state that it is a final and
appealable order or that it disposes of all parties and claims. Thus, the claim against
Liberty remains pending. See Harper v. Welchem, Inc., 799 S.W.2d 492, 495 (Tex. App.โ
Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no writ) (โIf this suit was merely abated, it was never
dismissed.โ).
We notified Kayitare of our concern that we do not have jurisdiction because
the dismissal order does not appear to be a final judgment or an appealable
interlocutory order. We stated that we could dismiss this appeal for want of
jurisdiction unless Kayitare or another party filed a response showing grounds for
continuing it. We have not received a response.
Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments and certain
interlocutory orders made appealable by statute. In re Guardianship of Jones, 629 S.W.3d
921, 924 (Tex. 2021); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195โ96 (Tex. 2001).
โBy definition, a final judgment must dispose of all parties and all claims in the
underlying case.โ Patel v. Nations Renovations, LLC, 661 S.W.3d 151, 154 (Tex. 2023).
The order in this case does not satisfy the requirement of a final judgment, and it is
2
not an order for which an interlocutory appeal has been authorized by statute. See
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ยง 51.014. Thus, we dismiss this appeal for want of
jurisdiction.
Per Curiam
Delivered: August 27, 2026
3