Opinion issued July 29, 2010

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-10-00148-CV

____________

SHERRYLENNE GARCIA, Appellant

V.

SHELL OIL COMPANY AND GUSTAVO PENNILLA D/B/A QUALITY TURBO SERVICES, Appellees

On Appeal from the 125th District Court of

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-49030

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellee, Shell Oil Company (“Shell”), has filed its motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction on the basis that the order being appealed is not a final judgment.  Appellant has not responded to Shell=s motion to dismiss the appeal.

Appellant, Sherrylene Garcia (“Garcia”) filed suit against two, defendants, Shell and Gustavo Pennilla d/b/a Quality Turbo Services (“QTS”).  The trial court rendered an interlocutory summary judgment order that Garcia take nothing against Shell.  The order made no mention of Shell’s co-defendant, QTS.  Garcia filed a notice of appeal of the interlocutory summary judgment order.  Shell asserts and Garcia does not dispute that after several communications from Shell that the trial court’s order is not final, Garcia’s counsel was unable to articulate any basis on which Garcia is entitled to an interlocutory appeal.

The general rule, with a few mostly statutory exceptions, not present here, is that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment.  Lehmann, v. Har-Con Corporation, 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). “A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record . . . .”  Id.  Here, the judgment being appealed is not final because it does not dispose of Shell’s co-defendant QTS.  Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to consider the appeal.  We grant Shell’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Hanks, and Higley.