Mikon Energy, LLC v. the Kansas City Southern Railway Company, a Corporation

Motion Granted and Memorandum Opinion filed December 19, 2023.




                                                 In The

                          Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                                       NO. 14-23-00576-CV

                             MIKON ENERGY, LLC, Appellant

                                                    V.
          THE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, A
                      CORPORATION, Appellee

                       On Appeal from the Co Civil Ct at Law No 1
                                 Harris County, Texas
                            Trial Court Cause No. 1191688

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

        This is an attempted appeal from an interlocutory summary judgment against
appellant, Mikon Energy, LLC (Mikon Energy). Appellee filed suit against Mikon
Energy, and Daniel J. Guerrero1, for breach of contract. Both Mikon Energy and
Guerrero filed answers. In the interlocutory judgment at issue, the trial court

1
  The judgment refers to Daniel J. Guerrero as DANIEL J. GUERRERO JR., individually, also known as and being
the same person as DANIEL L. GUERRERO JR., DANIEL GUERRO JR., DANIEL GUERERO JR., DANIEL
GUERREERO, DAN GUERRERO, DANIEL G. GUERRERO AND D.J. GUERRERO, JR.
granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment on its claim against Mikon
Energy. However, appellee did not seek a summary judgment on its claim against
Guerrero, and the interlocutory judgment at issue does not rule on that claim.

      Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v.
Har-Con Corp., 

 (Tex. 2001). When orders do not dispose of
all pending parties and claims, the orders remain interlocutory and unappealable
until final judgment is rendered unless a statutory exception applies. Bally Total
Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 

 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc.
v. Tipps, 

 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The trial court has
not disposed of all pending parties and claims.

      Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion to dismiss.

                                  PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Christopher, Justices Wise and Jewell.




                                         2