Cantu Services, Inc. v. United Freedom Associates, Inc.
329 S.W.3d 58
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- Randolph-Sheppard Act governs blind persons operating vending facilities on federal property; DARS licenses and funds Fort Bliss contract.
- Cantu, as DARS consultant, and Johnson initially engaged; Johnson licensed as manager; contract payments routed through DARS to Cantu.
- November 1, 2008 Johnson begins operating independently; Cantu claims unpaid pre-November 1, 2008 invoices totaling over $2.5 million.
- UFA begins providing Fort Bliss services November 1, 2008; UFA pays Cantu 39% of a DARS check; Cantu alleges underpayment and misallocation.
- December 2008: Cantu files suit seeking injunctive relief and damages; UFA moves for venue transfer and plea to the jurisdiction; DARS does not file a plea.
- Trial court grants UFA's plea to the jurisdiction, dismissing the case without prejudice; Cantu appeals the interlocutory order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the order final or interlocutory? | Cantu contends the order resolves all claims against all parties. | UFA argues the order disposes only some claims against one party, making it interlocutory. | Interlocutory; not a final disposition. |
| Is the interlocutory order appealable under §51.014(a)(8)? | Cantu asserts appellate review is authorized for governmental-immunity plea rulings. | UFA maintains no statutory exception applies because UFA is not a governmental unit and not all claims were disposed. | Not appealable; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Did the trial court dispose of all causes of action and all parties? | Cantu contends the order resolved all claims against UFA and DARS. | UFA concedes only part of the claims were addressed; DARS remained unadjudicated and not severed. | No; order did not dispose of all parties/causes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (finality doctrine for judgments; disposition of all claims required)
- El Paso County v. Alvarado, 290 S.W.3d 895 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2009) (limits on appellate review of interlocutory orders)
- Nikolouzos v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, 162 S.W.3d 678 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (dismissal of non-appealable interlocutory orders)
- Anglin v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. 1992) (interlocutory appeal rules and severance considerations)