






NUMBER 13-03-165-CV


COURT OF APPEALS


THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________________

FRANCISCO CASTRO,		Appellant,

v.

CENTURYTEL WIRELESS, INC.,	Appellee.
____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
Opinion Per Curiam

	Appellant, Francisco Castro, seeks to appeal an order granting a partial summary
judgment in a bill of review proceeding.  In the underlying proceeding, appellee,
Centurytel Wireless, Inc. ("Centurytel"), filed a bill of review to set aside a default
judgment in favor of appellant.  The trial court signed a partial summary judgment in
favor of Centurytel, and entered judgment that "the default judgment . . . and all
matters in dispute. . . shall proceed to trial on the merits."  This appeal ensued. 
Centurytel has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.  We agree
with Centurytel, and dismiss the appeal.
	We have no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a judgment that is not final. 
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).  A judgment is final if
it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record. Guajardo v. Conwell, 46
S.W.3d 862, 863-64 (Tex. 2001) (per curiam).  A bill of review that sets aside a prior
judgment, yet does not dispose of all the issues in the case, is interlocutory and not
appealable. Jordan v. Jordan, 907 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam) (citing
Tesoro Petroleum v. Smith, 796 S.W.2d 705, 705 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam)); Hartford
Underwriters Ins. v. Mills, 110 S.W.3d 588, 591 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2003, no
pet.); Mills v. Corvettes of Houston, Inc, 44 S.W.3d 197, 199 (Tex. App.-Houston
[14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.).
	The trial court in this case has ordered a trial on the merits, thus indicating that
all issues are not resolved.  See Jordan, 907 S.W.2d at 472.  Accordingly, this Court
lacks jurisdiction over the appeal.  See id.
	The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

							PER CURIAM

Opinion delivered and filed this
the 20th day of November, 2003.
