Lampasas Drug Company LTD. D/B/A Cattles Pharmacy v. Julia Santamaria, Individually and as Next Friend J. B., a Minor
This text of Lampasas Drug Company LTD. D/B/A Cattles Pharmacy v. Julia Santamaria, Individually and as Next Friend J. B., a Minor (Lampasas Drug Company LTD. D/B/A Cattles Pharmacy v. Julia Santamaria, Individually and as Next Friend J. B., a Minor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-24-00140-CV
LAMPASAS DRUG COMPANY, LTD. D/B/A CATTLES PHARMACY, APPELLANT
V.
JULIA SANTAMARIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND J. B., A MINOR, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 27th District Court Lampasas County, Texas Trial Court No. 23150, Honorable John T. Gauntt, Presiding
April 25, 2024 ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.
Appellant, Lampasas Drug Company, Ltd. d/b/a Cattles Pharmacy (“Lampasas”),
appeals from the trial court’s Order Overruling Defendant’s Objections to Chapter 74
Expert Report of Sergei Grando, M.D.1 We remand the cause to the trial court to rule on
Lampasas’ Rule 306a motion for additional time to file a notice of appeal.
1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the
Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. The trial court signed the Order Overruling Defendant’s Objections to Chapter 74
Expert Report of Sergei Grando, M.D. on February 9, 2024. Although the notice of appeal
was due twenty days later, by February 29, 2024, Lampasas did not file a notice of appeal
until March 25. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(19), 74.351(b); TEX.
R. APP. P. 26.1(b), 28.1(b). On April 4, 2024, Lampasas filed a sworn motion to extend
the appellate deadline pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 306a in the trial court. By this
motion, Lampasas asserts that it first acquired knowledge of the signing of the order on
March 4, 2024, but did not receive a copy of the order until March 6. The Rule 306a
motion remains pending in the trial court. A hearing on the matter has been scheduled
for May 3, 2024.
A timely notice of appeal is essential to invoking our jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 25.1(b), 26.1; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616–17 (Tex. 1997). In an
accelerated appeal, a notice of appeal is due within twenty days after the judgment or
order is signed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b). If a party does not receive notice or acquire
actual knowledge of a judgment within twenty days of its signing, the period to file a notice
of appeal will not begin to run until the date the party received notice or acquired actual
knowledge of the judgment. TEX. R. APP. P. 4.2(a); TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a.4. To gain this
additional time, a party must file a sworn Rule 306a motion and obtain a written order that
finds the date when the party or the party’s attorney first received notice or acquired actual
knowledge that the judgment was signed. TEX. R. APP. P. 4.2(b), (c); TEX. R. CIV. P.
306a.5. “The sworn motion establishes a prima facie case that the party lacked timely
notice and invokes a trial court’s otherwise-expired jurisdiction for the limited purpose of
holding an evidentiary hearing to determine the date on which the party or its counsel first
2 received notice or acquired knowledge of the judgment.” In re Lynd Co., 195 S.W.3d 682,
685 (Tex. 2006).
Because Lampasas has filed a sworn Rule 306a motion with the trial court seeking
additional time to file its notice of appeal, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to
the trial court to conduct a hearing, rule on the motion, and enter a finding of the date
Lampasas first received notice or acquired actual knowledge of the signing of the Order
Overruling Defendant’s Objections to Chapter 74 Expert Report of Sergei Grando, M.D.2
See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.2; TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a; PDG, Inc. v. Abilene Vill., LLC, No. 07-19-
00118-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 3129, at *3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Apr. 17, 2019, order)
(per curiam) (remanding for the trial court to enter findings in accordance with appellate
rule 4.2).
The trial court shall enter its findings in a written order and include the order in a
clerk’s record to be filed with this Court by May 28, 2024.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
2 Lampasas also filed a motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal in this Court on the same
basis as its 306a motion. Appellee, Julia Santamaria, opposes the motion for extension and has filed a separate motion to dismiss the appeal due to its untimeliness. We will resolve the motion for extension and motion to dismiss the appeal after the trial court rules on Lampasas’ 306a motion and upon reinstatement of the appeal. 3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Lampasas Drug Company LTD. D/B/A Cattles Pharmacy v. Julia Santamaria, Individually and as Next Friend J. B., a Minor, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lampasas-drug-company-ltd-dba-cattles-pharmacy-v-julia-santamaria-texapp-2024.