Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court Dallas County,
Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-05478
Chief Justice Wright, Justice Francis, and Justice
an appeal from an amended order denying appellant's
special appearance. The original order was signed November 9,
2016 and was not appealed. The amended order followed
appellant's "motion to amend order and for
reconsideration" and was signed May 18, 2017. It was
appealed June 6, 2017, within twenty days from when it was
Although an appeal from an order denying a special appearance
must be filed within twenty days of the signing of the order,
appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely.
See Digges v. Knowledge Alliance, Inc., 176 S.W.3d
463, 463 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no
pet.) (op. on reh'g) (per curiam). Appellees assert the
notice of appeal should have been filed within twenty days of
the date the original order was signed, and because it was
not, this Court lacks jurisdiction. See Brashear v.
Victoria Gardens of McKinney, L.L.C., 302 S.W.3d 542,
545 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.) (op. on reh'g)
(timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional).
order denying a special appearance is an interlocutory order
made appealable by statute. See Tex. Civ. Prac.
& Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(7) (West Supp. 2016).
Because statutes authorizing interlocutory appeals are a
narrow exception to the general rule that interlocutory
orders are not immediately appealable, they are narrowly
construed. See City of Houston v. Estate of Jones,
388 S.W.3d 663, 666 (Tex. 2012) (per curiam). Their purpose
is to increase efficiency of the judicial process and, as
such, they generally do not allow for an immediate appeal
from an order denying a motion to reconsider an appealable
interlocutory order. See id. at 667
("[a]llowing interlocutory appeals whenever a trial
court refuses to change its mind . . . would invite
successive appeals and undermine the statute's purpose of
promoting judicial economy.") (quoting Bally Total
Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 356 (Tex.
2001)). However, when the motion to reconsider an appealable
interlocutory order raises a new ground, an order denying the
motion is independently and immediately appealable. See
id.; see also City of Magnolia 4A Econ. Dev. Corp v.
Smedley, No. 16-0718, 2017 WL 4848580 *3-5 (Tex. Oct.
27, 2017) (per curiam).
record here reflects the issue in the special appearance was
whether the trial court could exercise specific jurisdiction
over appellant. See Michiana Easy Livin' Country,
Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777, 794-95 (Tex. 2005).
Appellant's motion to amend and reconsider did not
present any new arguments. Instead, it cited to decisions
issued after the original order was signed, none of which
changed the state of the law regarding specific jurisdiction.
the motion to amend and reconsider presented no new argument,
we conclude the amended order denying appellant's special
appearance was not independently appealable and agree with
appellees that appellant should have filed its notice of
appeal within twenty days of the signing of the original
order. Accordingly, we grant appellees' motion and
dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, we
DISMISS the appeal.
ORDER appellees Moises Gallegos,
Individually and as Heir and as Bystander and as Statutory
Beneficiary of His Mother, Maria Luisa Gallegos, Deceased,
and as Representative of the Estate of Maria Luisa Gallegos,
Deceased; The Estate of Maria Luisa Gallegos, Deceased;
Claudio Gallegos as Heir and as Statutory Beneficiary of His
Mother, Maria Luisa Gallegos; Rosa Isela Ramirez as Heir and
as Statutory Beneficiary of Her Mother, Maria Luisa Gallegos;
Nora Elia Gallegos as Heir and as Statutory Beneficiary of
Her Mother, Maria Luisa Gallegos; Juan Jose Gallegos as Heir
and as Statutory Beneficiary of His Mother, Maria Luisa
Gallegos; Leydi Elena Gallegos as Heir and as Statutory
Beneficiary of Her Mother, ...