Full Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-26-00124-CV ___________________________ RODOLFO G. ROSA, Appellant V. THOMAS LITTLE; DAVID TRANTHAM, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DISTRICT CLERK OF DENTON COUNTY; DENTON COUNTY SHERIFF; AND JUDGE BRUCE MCFARLING, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE 362ND DISTRICT COURT, Appellees On Appeal from the 367th District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 25-5366-16 Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Walker, J. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Rodolfo G. Rosa appeals from the trial court’s December 12, 2025 “Order Granting [Appellee] Thomas Little’s Motion to Dismiss and Sustaining Thomas Little’s Plea to the Jurisdiction” (the December 12 Order) that dismissed with prejudice Rosa’s claims against Little on multiple grounds. However, the December 12 Order does not clearly and unequivocally express the trial court’s intent to render a final judgment, see Bella Palma, LLC v. Young, 601 S.W.3d 799, 801 (Tex. 2020), and the order does not actually dispose of all claims and parties. Thus, the order is not final. See Patel v. Nations Renovations, LLC, 661 S.W.3d 151, 154 (Tex. 2023) (“By definition, a final judgment must dispose of all parties and all claims in the underlying case.”). However, although the December 12 Order was not clearly and unequivocally final, it contained some language suggesting that the trial court may have intended it to be final. Accordingly, on June 26, 2026, we abated the appeal to allow the trial court the opportunity to make the order final. See Tex. R. App. P. 27.2 (stating that an appellate court “may allow an appealed order that is not final to be modified so as to be made final”). The trial court has taken no action in response to the abatement order. We interpret the court’s inaction to mean that it did not intend for the December 12 Order to be a final judgment. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments and certain interlocutory orders made appealable by statute. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014; In re Guardianship of Jones, 629 S.W.3d 921, 924 (Tex. 2021); Lehmann v. 2 Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195–96 (Tex. 2001). The December 12 Order is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014. Accordingly, we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal, and we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We deny as moot Appellant’s pending “Motion for Entry of a Definite Compliance Deadline and for Further Relief.” Per Curiam Delivered: October 8, 2026 3