Shetewy v. Mediation Inst. of N. Tex., LLC, 02-20-00232-CV

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Writing for the Court: Opinion by Justice Wallach
• Citation: 624 S.W.3d 285
• Parties: Elwalid SHETEWY, Appellant v. MEDIATION INSTITUTE OF NORTH TEXAS, LLC (MINT), Islamic Tribunal (IT), Moujahed Bakhach, Ahmed Abouseif, Iman Bakhach, and Taher Elbadawi, Appellees
• Docket Number: No. 02-20-00232-CV,02-20-00232-CV
• Decision Date: 29 April 2021

624 S.W.3d 285

Elwalid SHETEWY, Appellant
v.
MEDIATION INSTITUTE OF NORTH TEXAS, LLC (MINT), Islamic Tribunal (IT), Moujahed Bakhach, Ahmed Abouseif, Iman Bakhach, and Taher Elbadawi, Appellees

No. 02-20-00232-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth.

Delivered: April 29, 2021

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ELWALID SHETEWY, PRO SE.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: JEREMY M. MASTEN, M. SAMEER AHMED, DALLAS, TEXAS.

Before Kerr, Bassel, and Wallach, JJ.

Opinion by Justice Wallach

Appellant Elwalid Shetewy attempts to appeal from an order that does not order, adjudge, or decree anything. Because the order lacks finality, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

I. Factual Background

Shetewy and Dima Shabaneh¹ were both Muslims. When they married, Shetewy allegedly paid Shabaneh $10,000 that he claims was to be returned to him if the marriage was dissolved. In 2017, Shabaneh filed for a civil divorce in Missouri. She and Shetewy entered into a settlement agreement, and the Missouri court dissolved their marriage on January 23, 2018. The $10,000 dowry was not specifically addressed in the settlement agreement or the Missouri divorce.

While the Missouri divorce was pending, Shabaneh applied to Appellee MINT, located in Fort Worth, Texas, for a religious divorce. Appellee Moujahed Bakhach was MINT's director. MINT issued a religious divorce certificate on January 15, 2018 without Shetewy's consent. Shetewy claims the religious divorce wrongfully released Shabaneh from the obligation to repay him the $10,000 dowry.

II. Procedural Background

Shetewy sued MINT, Bakhach, and other related defendants for Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act violations and negligence per se based on the unauthorized practice of law, seeking ordinary and exemplary damages. All the defendants moved for dismissal under Rule 91a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, contending that there was no basis

624 S.W.3d 287

for maintaining the suit. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a. After a Zoom hearing on June 22, 2020, the trial court took the case under advisement, and the court signed an order the next day. The signed order provides,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MEDIATION INSTITUTION OF NORTH TEXAS, ISLAMIC TRIBUNAL, MOUJAHED BAKHACH, AHMED ABOU[ ]SEIF, IMAN BAKHACH, AND TAHER ELBADAWI MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

On this 22nd day of June 2020, the Court considered Defendants Mediation Institute of North Texas, Islamic Tribunal, Moujahed Bakhach, Ahmed Abou[s]eif, Iman Bakhach, and Taher Elbadawi's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and, after reviewing the documents on file and the motions, the Court finds that the Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice has merit and should be GRANTED. Signed on this 23rd day of June, 2020.

Shetewy attempts to appeal that order.

III. Jurisdictional Inquiry

Upon our review of the record, we became concerned that we might lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Specifically, we noticed that the challenged order lacks decretal language disposing of Appellees' motion and the case and thus does not appear to be a final judgment for purposes of appeal. See Matter of Guardianship of Jones , No. 02-19-00187-CV, 2020 WL 1887845, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 16, 2020, pet. filed) (mem. op.) (holding order disposing of motions to dismiss but lacking decretal language disposing of petition for bill of review was not final); In re Wilmington Tr., Nat'l Ass'n , 524 S.W.3d 790, 792 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding) ("An order that merely grants a motion for judgment is in no sense a judgment itself. It adjudicates nothing." (quoting Naaman v. Grider , 126 S.W.3d 73, 74 (Tex. 2003) (per curiam) )). We therefore asked the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing this jurisdictional issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. Having reviewed those supplemental briefs, we conclude that the trial court's order is not final for purposes of appeal and...