In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-23-00422-CV ___________________________ KOMATSU FINANCIAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellant V. MAMMOTH RENTAL AND SUPPLY, LLC; MATTHEW MAHONE; AND ORYX OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 153rd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 153-329332-21

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION Generally, this court has jurisdiction only over final judgments and interlocutory orders from which an appeal is expressly authorized by statute. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 51.012, 51.014(a); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Here, Appellant Komatsu Financial Limited Partnership attempts to appeal from the trial court’s October 13, 2023 order denying its motion for summary judgment. We notified the parties in our November 8, 2023 letter that “[t]he court is concerned it may not have jurisdiction over this appeal from the trial court’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support Thereof, because it does not appear to be a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order.” We further stated that unless appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with this court, on or before Tuesday, November 28, 2023, a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, this appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. We received no response.

Because the order from which Appellant attempts to appeal is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Kaithackal v. Mary Kay, Inc., No. 05-23- 00568-CV, 2023 WL 7449948, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 10, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (dismissing attempted appeal from denial of motion for summary judgment).

Per Curiam Delivered: January 4, 2024