Appeal from the 55th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2018-27972.
consists of Justices Chief Justice Radack and Justices Landau
Ginger Ingram, attempts to appeal the trial court's order
granting partial summary judgment in favor of appellee, the
City of Houston. On May 6, 2019, the City filed a motion to
dismiss, arguing that appellant untimely filed her notice of
appeal. On May 16, 2019, appellant responded, arguing that
the trial court had yet to rule on an outstanding motion and
that we should suspend any deadline imposed by our appellate
a notice of appeal is due within thirty days after the
judgment is signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. The
deadline to file a notice of appeal is extended to ninety
days after the date the judgment is signed if any party
timely files a motion for new trial, motion to modify the
judgment, motion to reinstate, or, under certain
circumstances, a request for findings of fact and conclusions
of law. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). The time to
file a notice of appeal may also be extended if, within
fifteen days after the deadline to file the notice of appeal,
a party properly files a motion for extension. See
Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 26.3.
notice of nonsuit terminates a case from the moment the
motion is filed. See Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim,
315 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Tex. 2010). However, when a nonsuit is
filed after a partial judgment has been signed, such as here,
the judgment does not become final until the trial court
signs either an order granting the nonsuit or a final
judgment explicitly memorializing the nonsuit. See Farmer
v. Ben E. Keith Co., 907 S.W.2d 495, 496 (Tex. 1995)
(per curiam). "When a judgment is interlocutory because
unadjudicated parties or claims remain before the court, and
when one moves to have such unadjudicated claims or parties
removed by severance, dismissal, or nonsuit, the appellate
timetable runs from the signing of a judgment or order
disposing of those claims or parties."
the record reflects that the trial court signed an order,
dismissing all of appellant's claims against the City on
December 11, 2018. The order specifically mentioned that the
order was not final because claims remained pending against
Jason Hall. On January 29, 2019, appellant filed a notice of
nonsuit of her remaining claims against Jason Hall. See
Travelers, 315 S.W.3d at 862 (stating that nonsuit
terminates case from moment motion for nonsuit is filed). Two
days later, on January 31, 2019, the trial court granted
appellant's nonsuit of her remaining claims against Jason
Hall. Appellant did not file a motion for new trial.
See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(a). Once the trial court
signed appellant's nonsuit, the interlocutory summary
judgment became final, and the appellate timetable ran from
January 31, 2019. See Farmer, 907 S.W.2d at 496.
Therefore, appellant's notice of appeal was due by March
2, 2019. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a).
untimely filed her notice of appeal on March 29, 2019.
Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks
jurisdiction over the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.
response to the motion to dismiss, appellant argues that she
filed a motion for entry of final judgment on March 1, 2019
and that the trial court did not rule on the motion.
Appellant then filed a notice of appeal on March 29, 2019,
twenty-seven days past the due date. Without citation to
authority, appellant states that because the trial court
"did not make a specific ruling to make the December 11,
2018 interlocutory judgment granting a partial summary
judgment in favor of the City of Houston a final
judgment" the deadline to file a notice of appeal had
"not begun to run." We disagree. As pointed out in
Farmer, the appellate timetable began to run once
the trial court signed appellant's notice of nonsuit.
See Farmer, 907 S.W.2d at 496.
alternative, appellant argues that we should allow her to
proceed with her appeal because of "confusion or error
for good cause would be prejudicial to Appellant."
Appellant asks this Court to suspend the deadline imposed by
our rules pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 2.
However, we decline appellant's invitation because Rule 2
specifically states that we cannot "alter the time for
perfecting an appeal in a civil case." See Tex.
R. App. P. 2.
we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for
want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).