This appeal is before the Court on its own motion for determination of whether it should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Finding that the trial court has not entered a final judgment or appealable order, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

It is well settled that appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments and interlocutory orders made appealable by statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corporation , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); T EX .C IV .P RAC .&R EM .C ODE A NN . § 51.014 (West 2015)(authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders). A final judgment is one that disposes of all pending parties and claims. See Lehmann , 39 S.W.3d at 195. Appellants filed a notice of appeal indicating that they are appealing the trial court’s order denying their motion for continuance. *2 The Court notified Appellants that it intended to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because there is no final judgment or appealable order. Appellants did not file a response. An order denying a motion for continuance is not subject to an interlocutory appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. All pending motions are denied as moot. September 23, 2015

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ (Hughes, J., not participating)

- 2 -