Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Salazar v. Worley Parsons Group, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District

December 5, 2017

JOSE ARMANDO SALAZAR AND ROSE SALAZAR, Appellants
v.
WORLEY PARSONS GROUP, INC. AND WORLEY PARSONS CORPORATION, Appellees

         On Appeal from the 133rd District Court Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Case No. 2015-20603

          Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Caughey.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          PER CURIAM.

         On April 10, 2017, the trial court dismissed Armando and Rose Salazar's claims against Worley Parsons Group Inc. and Worley Parsons Corporation for failure to file a certificate of merit, as required by Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 150. On July 7, 2017, the Salazars filed a notice of appeal. Worley Parsons seeks dismissal of the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the Salazars' notice of appeal was untimely.[1] Because we agree that the notice of appeal was untimely, we dismiss the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

         Chapter 150.002 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, entitled Certificate of Merit, provides, in relevant part, that in "any action or arbitration proceeding for damages arising out of the provision of professional services by a licensed or registered professional, the plaintiff shall be required to file with the complaint an affidavit of a third-party licensed architect, licensed professional engineer, registered landscape architect, or registered professional land surveyor . . . ." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 150.002(a) (emphasis added). It mandates that the third party offering this affidavit hold "the same professional license or registration as the defendant" and be "knowledgeable in the area of practice of the defendant." Id. Furthermore, the "affidavit shall set forth specifically for each theory of recovery for which damages are sought, the negligence, if any, or other action, error, or omission of the licensed or registered professional in providing the professional service, including any error or omission in providing advice, judgment, opinion, or a similar professional skill claimed to exist and the factual basis for each such claim." Id. at § 150.002(b).

         The Code makes clear that where the plaintiff fails to file this requisite certificate of merit, the complaint must be dismissed. Id. at § 150.002(e). Moreover, the "order granting or denying a motion for dismissal is immediately appealable as an interlocutory order." Id. § 150.002(f).

         Interlocutory appeals authorized by statute are accelerated appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.1(a). Thus, the deadline to perfect an interlocutory appeal is 20 days after the court signs the judgment or order. Tex.R.App.P. 26.1(b) ("[I]n an accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal must be filed within 20 days after the judgment or order is signed.").

         Here, the Salazars did not file a timely notice of appeal from the interlocutory order. On April 10, 2017, the trial court signed its interlocutory order dismissing the Salazars' claims under Chapter 150. The deadline to perfect an appeal of that order was therefore May 1, 2017. The Salazars filed their July 7, 2017 notice of appeal sixty-seven days after the deadline. This was too late.

         Finally, the Salazars' Motion for New Trial does not change this result. On May 10, 2017, the Salazars filed a "Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Granting Defendant Worley Parsons' Motion to Dismiss, and Alternatively, Motion for New Trial." Although the filing of a motion for new trial extends the deadline for perfecting an appeal in regular appeals, "[f]iling a motion for new trial does not extend the appellate deadlines in an accelerated appeal . . . . [T]he deadline for filing a notice of appeal is strictly set at twenty days after the judgment is signed, with no exceptions." Spencer v. Pagliarulo, 448 S.W.3d 605, 606 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (quoting In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 927 (Tex. 2005) and citing Tex.R.App.P. 26.1(b)) (internal punctuations omitted). "Filing a motion for new trial [or] any other post-trial motion . . . . will not extend the time to perfect an accelerated appeal." Tex.R.App.P. 28.1(b).

         Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). The dismissal of this interlocutory appeal is without prejudice to the filing of an appeal from a final order in the underlying case. We dismiss the Salazars' motion for voluntary dismissal and any other pending motions as moot.

---------

Notes:

[1] After Worley Parsons filed its motion to dismiss, the Salazars also filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss their appeal in which they assert that the April 10, 2017 order was interlocutory. The Salazars have not paid the fees for the filing of a clerk's record, but assert that the parties have not moved to sever, the trial court has not severed the action, and the trial court has not entered a final judgment in the severed case. Worley Parsons urges ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.