Lampasas Drug Company LTD. D/B/A Cattles Pharmacy v. Julia Santamaria, Individually and as Next Friend J. B., a Minor

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, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 27th District Court Lampasas County, Texas Trial Court No. 23150, Honorable John T. Gauntt, Presiding

July 23, 2024 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER 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 dismiss the untimely appeal for want of

jurisdiction.

We previously remanded this cause to the trial court to rule on Lampasas’ Rule

306a motion for additional time to file a notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.2(a); TEX.

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. R. CIV. P. 306a.5. On remand, the trial court issued an Order Denying Rule 306a(5)

Motion and findings and conclusions of law. According to these findings, the trial court

signed the Order Overruling Defendant’s Objections to Chapter 74 Expert Report of

Sergei Grando, M.D. on February 6, 2024. The order was delivered electronically that

day to all parties, including Lampasas’ counsel. Consequently, Lampasas’ notice of

appeal was due twenty days thereafter, by February 26, 2024. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. &

REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(9) (permitting interlocutory appeal), 74.351(b); TEX. R. APP.

P. 26.1(b), 28.1(b) (concerning accelerated appeals). Lampasas did not file a notice of

appeal until March 25, 2024, after the fifteen-day extension period. See TEX. R. APP. P.

26.3.

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).

Notwithstanding that the Texas Supreme Court has directed us to construe the Rules of

Appellate Procedure reasonably and liberally so that the right of appeal is not lost by

imposing requirements not absolutely necessary to effect the purpose of those rules, we

are prohibited from enlarging the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case. See

Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 616–17; TEX. R. APP. P. 2 (providing that we may not suspend a

rule’s operation or order a different procedure to alter the time for perfecting an appeal).

Accordingly, we reinstate the appeal, grant Appellee Julia Santamaria’s

previously-filed motion to dismiss, and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.2

The appeal is dismissed.

Per Curiam

2 We also deny Lampasas’ pending motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal.