Khalil Coleman v. Kentucky General Assembly

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 20-JUN-2025 07:58 AM Dkt. 63 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I MERVINA KAUKINI MAMO CASH-KAEO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GUY K. BARRETT; RONETTE BARRETT, Defendants-Appellants, DUSTIN K. BARRETT; SHEENA ANN BARRETT; RICHARD BARRETT; LEZLEY K. BARRETT aka LEZLEY BRADBURY, Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; and DOE ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT WAI‘ANAE DIVISION (CASE NO. 1DRC-XX-XXXXXXX) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and Guidry, JJ.) Defendants-Appellants Guy K. Barrett and Ronette Barrett (collectively, the Barretts) appeal from the District Court of the First Circuit's (district court)1 May 17, 2022 Judgment for Possession. They raise three points of error, contending that the district court abused its discretion when: 1 The Honorable Darolyn H. Lendio entered the Judgment for Possession. The Honorable Michelle N. Comeau presided over the April 26, 2022 hearing on Plaintiff-Appellee Mervina Kaukini Mamo Cash-Kaeo's (Cash- Kaeo) motion for summary judgment (MSJ).  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER (1) "it defaulted [the Barretts] for [their] non[-]appearance [at the MSJ hearing] where the facts show [the Barretts had] defended themselves in this action by retaining counsel" who "made eight court appearances at hearings in defense of [the Barretts]"; (2) "it applied the extreme sanctions methodology" by entering default judgment against the Barretts "for the failure of their counsel to appear at the hearing on [Cash- Kaeo's] [MSJ]"; and (3) "it allowed the hearing on [Cash-Kaeo's] [MSJ] to proceed without first addressing [counsel's] non[- ]appearance at this hearing." Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve the Barretts' appeal as follows. The Barretts contend that the district court entered default judgment against them pursuant to District Court Rules of Civil Procedure (DCRCP) Rule 55. The record reflects, however, that the district court entered the May 17, 2022 Judgment for Possession against the Barretts because Cash-Kaeo demonstrated she was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law under DCRCP Rule 56. Pursuant to DCRCP Rule 56(c), a motion for summary judgment may be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no 2  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." We review the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo. Kanahele v. State, 154 Hawaiʻi 190, 201, 549 P.3d 275, 286 (2024). The Barretts point to no evidence in the record indicating a genuine issue of material fact disputing that Cash- Kaeo is the sole surviving lessee of the subject property, and that Cash-Kaeo is therefore entitled to judgment of possession against the Barretts as a matter of law. The Barretts also cite no authority indicating the district court was required to address their counsel's non-appearance at the MSJ hearing before it could grant the MSJ. Even if the district court was required to do so, the Barretts fail to identify any legal theory or issue of fact that could have or would have been presented in opposition to the MSJ to defeat the motion. We therefore conclude the district court did not err in granting the MSJ, and affirm the May 17, 2022 Judgment for Possession. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, June 20, 2025. On the briefs: /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Presiding Judge Barry L. Sooalo, for Defendants-Appellants. /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge Jay T. Suemori, for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Associate Judge

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas 10-24-00228-CV Patrick Alan Powers, Appellant v. Teresa Seamon, Appellee On appeal from the County Court at Law No 2 of Johnson County, Texas Judge F. Steven McClure, presiding Trial Court Cause No. CC-P202325571-A JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Patrick Alan Powers, appeals from a July 10, 2024 order of dismissal. The pertinent part of that order states: As to Defendant’s Rule 91(a) Motion to Dismiss: X The Motion is GRANTED due to lack of capacity; and/or X The Motion is GRANTED due to lack of standing;  On May 29, 2025, the Clerk of this Court notified Powers that there does not appear to be a final judgment from which he can appeal to this Court, and the appeal is subject to dismissal. We specifically directed his attention to In re Vaishangi, Inc., 442 S.W.3d 256, 260 (Tex. 2014) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding) in which the supreme court held that a Rule 11 agreement to dismiss all claims, which contained no decretal language, was not a final judgment. The Clerk of the Court further notified Powers that the Court may dismiss this appeal unless, within fourteen days from the date of the letter, a response is filed showing grounds for continuing the appeal. In his late-filed response, Powers asserts that the order he attempts to appeal disposes of all issues in the phase of the proceeding for which it was brought and is therefore final and appealable. Powers does not address the fact that the July 10, 2024 order of dismissal does not include any decretal language. Our jurisdiction is limited to appeals from final judgments, except as explicitly allowed by statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.012; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). An order merely granting a motion for judgment is nothing more than an indication of the trial court’s ruling on the motion itself and adjudicates nothing. Naaman v. Grider, 126 S.W.3d 73, 74 (Tex. 2003) (per curiam). An order or judgment that does Powers v. Seamon Page 2 not contain decretal language is not a final judgment. See In re Vaishangi, Inc., 442 S.W.3d at 260. Because the order Powers attempts to appeal contains no decretal language, it is not an appealable judgment, and we have no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. See id. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. STEVE SMITH Justice OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: June 26, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Dismissed CV06 Powers v. Seamon Page 3

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS § MORRIS REID, III, No. 08-25-00155-CV § Appellant, Appeal from the § v. 112th District Court § HOLLOMAN CORPORATION, of Crockett County, Texas § Appellee. (TC# 21-02-08136-CV) § § MEMORANDUM OPINION This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Because we find that Appellant Morris Reid III did not timely perfect his appeal, we dismiss for want of jurisdiction. Appellate courts generally have jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments filed within 30 days after the appealable order is signed, or within 90 days after the appealable order is signed if a party timely files one of the pleadings listed in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1 (providing deadlines to perfect an appeal in a civil case); Butts v. Capitol City Nursing Home, Inc., 705 S.W.2d 696. 697 (Tex. 1986) (per curiam). A proper motion to reinstate under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a extends the deadline to file a notice of appeal from 30 days to 90 days. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(3). The Texas Supreme Court has held that a proper motion to reinstate must be verified and filed with the clerk within 30 days of the order of dismissal. McConell v. May, 800 S.W.2d 194, 194 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam); See Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(3) (requiring the motion to be verified by the movant or his attorney). An unverified motion does not extend the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction or the deadlines for perfecting an appeal. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Barnet, 589 S.W.3d 313, 317 (Tex. App.—El Paso, no pet.). On May 16, 2025, Reid filed a notice of appeal stating his desire to appeal from an order “rendered on April 17, 2025” granting Holloman Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss. However, upon further review of the clerk’s record, the order granting Holloman Corporation’s motion was signed by the trial court on March 4, 2025. The clerk’s record also contains Reid’s unverified motion to reinstate pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a, filed on March 21, 2025. Although filed within 30 days of the date of the judgment, because Reid’s motion was unverified, it did not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. Accordingly, Reid’s notice of appeal was due April 3, 2025—30 days after the trial court signed its dismissal order, and the notice of appeal filed May 16, 2025, is untimely. The Clerk of this Court sent notice to Reid that his appeal would be dismissed as untimely on or after June 15, 2025, unless he responded and established a basis for our jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). As of the date of this memorandum, we have received no response. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. MARIA SALAS MENDOZA, Chief Justice June 25, 2025 Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox, J., and Rodriguez, C.J. (Ret.) Rodriguez, C.J. (Ret.) (Sitting by Assignment) 2

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth No. 02-24-00252-CV JIM BURGESS, Appellant § On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 § of Tarrant County (2022-000739-2) V. § June 19, 2025 CITY OF WESTWORTH VILLAGE, Appellee § Opinion by Justice Wallach JUDGMENT This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there was error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is further ordered that Appellee City of Westworth Village must pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS By _/s/ Mike Wallach___________________ Justice Mike Wallach

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-25-00219-CV ___________________________ JMK5 DRIVE, LLC, JEROME M. KARAM, AND JMK5 MALL OF THE MAINLAND, LLC, Appellants V. NORTH MILL EQUIPMENT FINANCE LLC, AS GRANTOR, BENEFICIARY AND SERVICER OF NORTH MILL CREDIT TRUST F/K/A EFS CREDIT TRUST, Appellee On Appeal from the 141st District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 141-357621-24 Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT On May 13, 2025, and May 28, 2025, we notified appellants, in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless they paid the $205 filing fee.1 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 44.3. Appellants have not done so.2 See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b). Because appellants have not complied with a procedural requirement and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2015,3 we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f). Appellants must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4. Per Curiam Delivered: June 19, 2025 In our May 13, 2025 letter, we stated that the fee was to be paid by May 23, 1 2025. In our May 28, 2025 letter, we stated that the fee was to paid by June 9, 2025. 2 We also directed appellants to file a docketing statement. See Tex. R. App. P. 32.1. In our May 13, 2025 letter, we stated that the docketing statement was to be filed by May 23, 2025. In our May 28, 2025 letter, we stated that the docketing statement was to be filed by June 9, 2025. Appellants have not filed a docketing statement. See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases 3 in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 (Aug. 28, 2015) (listing courts of appeals’ fees). 2