in Re Loretta Young Cantu, 13-16-00632-CV

Rolando Cantu, as receiver for Preferred Ambulance, paid the company’s alleged unpaid payroll taxes (~$137,503.75) and sued Loretta Young Cantu (relator) and Horacio Cantu Jr. seeking indemnity, declaratory relief, breach of contract, and related claims.
Rolando filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment targeting relator’s 18 affirmative defenses and five counterclaims; after hearing, the trial court signed an order on March 17, 2016 granting Rolando’s motion and dismissing relator’s counterclaims with prejudice.
The March 17 order resolved only relator’s defenses and counterclaims; it did not address Rolando’s affirmative claims against relator or his claims against Horacio, and it contained no language expressly declaring finality.
The district clerk sent notice describing the order as a “final judgment” and the case file/docket reflected the case as disposed, which led relator to forbear further action and the clerk to decline to set relator’s later summary-judgment motions.
Rolando later filed an amended petition and a new motion for summary judgment, which the trial court set for hearing; relator sought mandamus to vacate that setting, arguing the court’s plenary power had expired because the March 17 order was final.
The court of appeals held the March 17 order was interlocutory (it did not dispose of all claims and parties), so the trial court retained plenary jurisdiction; the mandamus petition was denied and the temporary stay lifted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the March 17, 2016 summary-judgment order was a final judgment such that the trial court’s plenary power expired	Relator: the March 17 order (and clerk’s “final judgment” notice/docket entries) was final; plenary power expired and any later setting is void	Rolando: the March 17 order was interlocutory because it did not dispose of Rolando’s claims against relator or claims against Horacio; trial court retained jurisdiction	Held: Interlocutory. The order did not dispose of all claims/parties and contained no unmistakable finality language; trial court retains plenary power; mandamus denied
Whether mandamus is available without showing lack of an adequate appellate remedy when an order is void	Relator: a void post-plenary order is subject to mandamus without showing inadequate appellate remedy	Rolando: not reached on merits because the order was not void	Held: Court did not reach issue because relator failed on finality; mandamus denied

Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (defining when a non-trial judgment is final for appeal: must dispose of all claims and parties or state unmistakable finality)
Farm Bureau County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rogers, 455 S.W.3d 161 (Tex. 2015) (reaffirming Lehmann standard for judgments rendered without conventional trial)
In re Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 35 S.W.3d 602 (Tex. 2000) (orders issued after a trial court’s plenary power expires are void and subject to mandamus)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (standards for mandamus relief and burden on relator)
In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus is extraordinary relief; relator must show clear abuse and lack of adequate appellate remedy)