DISMISS and Opinion Filed November 10, 2023

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00568-CV LUKE KAITHACKAL, Appellant V. MARY KAY, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-13790 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein Opinion by Chief Justice Burns In the notice of appeal, appellant states he is appealing from the trial court’s March 10, 2023 final judgment “that apparently granted Defendant’s Traditional and No-Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment.” Because the trial court did not specify in its order whether it was granting or denying the defendant’s motions for summary judgment, we ordered the trial court to sign an order clarifying its ruling. On July 27, 2023, the trial court signed an amended order denying appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Because the amended order denied appellee’s motion for summary judgment and it appeared appellant’s claims remain pending, we questioned our jurisdiction over the appeal and directed the parties to file letter briefs. See Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (generally, appeal may only be taken from final judgment that disposes of all parties and claims).

In his letter brief, appellant agrees we lack jurisdiction unless it is first necessary for the trial court to vacate the March order. Because that order did not dispose of any claims, the trial court had plenary power to sign the amended order and vacatur is unnecessary.

Because no final judgment has been rendered, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

/Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE 230568F.P05

–2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT LUKE KAITHACKAL, Appellant On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-23-00568-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-13790.

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice MARY KAY, INC., Appellee Burns. Justices Molberg and Goldstein participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee MARY KAY, INC. recover its costs of this appeal from appellant LUKE KAITHACKAL.

Judgment entered November 10, 2023

–3–