EATX Coffee, LLC v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 13, 2016
• Docket: 04-16-00213-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas April 13, 2016

No. 04-16-00213-CV

EATX COFFEE, LLC d/b/a Cuvee Coffee, Appellant

v.

TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION, Appellee

From the 345th District Court, Travis County, Texas Trial Court No. D-1-GN-15-005355 Honorable Gisela D. Triana, Judge Presiding

ORDER On February 1, 2016, the trial court granted the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission’s plea to the jurisdiction. On March 2, 2016, Appellant filed its notice of appeal. On March 7, 2016, Appellant filed an opposed motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. A party may appeal an interlocutory order that grants or denies a plea to the jurisdiction. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(8) (West Supp. 2016); see Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. 2007). But an order that grants a plea to the jurisdiction and disposes of all pending claims against all parties is a final, appealable order, and the accelerated appellate timetable does not apply. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (final judgment); see also Farm Bureau County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rogers, 455 S.W.3d 161, 163 (Tex. 2015) (same); Saifi v. City of Tex. City, No. 14-13-00815-CV, 2015 WL 1843540, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 23, 2015) (mem. op.) (“Because [appellant] appeals from a final judgment disposing of all parties and claims before the trial court, the City is incorrect that the judgment is interlocutory and subject to an accelerated appellate timetable.”); Fox v. Wardy, 318 S.W.3d 449, 452 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010, pet. denied) (same). For a regular appeal, the notice of appeal is due within thirty days after the judgment is signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). Here, the trial court’s February 1, 2016 order granted the State’s plea to the jurisdiction, and the order expressly states it is a final judgment. There are no pending claims that remain before the trial court in this cause. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195; Saifi, 2015 WL 1843540, at *3. Appellant’s notice of appeal was timely filed; its motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal is moot.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 13th day of April, 2016.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court