in Re: Catholic Diocese of El Paso (San Lorenzo Church), 465 S.W.3d 808

Real Parties (four minors and their parents) sued San Lorenzo Church (Catholic Diocese of El Paso) and Heritage for injuries from a church festival fire; earlier defendants Paneral and Ivey settled with the minors.
Plaintiffs filed amended petitions before trial naming only San Lorenzo and Heritage, omitting Paneral and Ivey.
After a conventional trial, the trial court signed a take-nothing judgment on October 5, 2012 stating it “fully and finally disposes of all parties and all claims and is final and appealable.”
Plaintiffs timely moved for new trial; the trial court initially denied that motion on November 9, 2012 (extending plenary power timeline). Plaintiffs later argued the October 5 judgment was interlocutory because minors’ settlements with Paneral and Ivey were unapproved.
The trial court later signed a nunc pro tunc judgment and a separate “Final Judgment Disposing of All Parties and Issues,” then granted a new trial on January 22, 2013.
The Court of Appeals held the October 5 judgment was final for appellate purposes, the trial court’s plenary power expired before granting the new trial, and the order granting a new trial was therefore void; mandamus was conditionally granted directing the trial court to vacate the new-trial order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the October 5 judgment was final for appellate purposes, so that the trial court lost plenary power before granting a new trial	The judgment was interlocutory because minors’ settlements with Paneral and Ivey were unapproved and those claims/parties had not been finally disposed	The October 5 judgment was final: plaintiffs’ amended petitions omitted Paneral and Ivey, the judgment followed a conventional trial and expressly declared finality	The October 5 judgment was final; the trial court’s plenary power expired and the later order granting a new trial was void
Whether a nunc pro tunc judgment could correct the October 5 judgment’s stated finality after plenary power expired	The October 5 judgment included finality language by clerical mistake and could be corrected by nunc pro tunc to restore jurisdiction	The inclusion of finality language was part of the rendered judgment; changing it after finality would be a judicial, not clerical, correction, impermissible after jurisdiction expired	The attempted nunc pro tunc alteration was judicial in nature and void; Rule 316 cannot be used to alter a rendered judgment after plenary power ends

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (defining finality for appeal and example language for a final judgment)
In re Brookshire Grocery Co., 250 S.W.3d 66 (Tex. 2008) (mandamus appropriate when trial court grants new trial after plenary power expired)
In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602 (Tex. 2000) (mandamus remedy for post-plenary new-trial orders)
In re Dickason, 987 S.W.2d 570 (Tex. 1998) (same)
Ne. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893 (Tex. 1966) (presumption that judgment after conventional trial disposes of all parties/issues)
John v. Marshall Health Servs., Inc., 58 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. 2001) (Aldridge presumption applies even if settling defendants not mentioned in judgment)
Moritz v. Preiss, 121 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. 2003) (judgment final despite nonmentioned settling defendant where trial record showed intent to dispose)
Escobar v. Escobar, 711 S.W.2d 230 (Tex. 1986) (distinguishing clerical vs. judicial errors; Rule 316 limited to clerical corrections)
Comet Aluminum Co. v. Dibrell, 450 S.W.2d 56 (Tex. 1970) (judicial errors in rendition cannot be corrected by nunc pro tunc after finality)