Texas Education Agency v. Excellence 2000 INC. and Sherwin Allen
This text of Texas Education Agency v. Excellence 2000 INC. and Sherwin Allen (Texas Education Agency v. Excellence 2000 INC. and Sherwin Allen) 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
Opinion issued August 15, 2024
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00368-CV ——————————— TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY, Appellant V. EXCELLENCE 2000, INC. AND SHERWIN ALLEN, Appellee
On Appeal from the 125th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2022-55524
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Texas Education Agency (TEA) attempts to appeal from the trial court’s order
denying its plea to the jurisdiction signed on April 5, 2024.
In an accelerated appeal such as this one, a notice of appeal is due within 20
days after the date a judgment or order is signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b). The court of appeals may extend the time to file an appeal if, within 15 days after the
original deadline, the party files a notice of appeal in the trial court and a motion to
extend the deadline in the appellate court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3.
There is a limited exception that allows a party to modify the above time
periods for perfecting an appeal when a party lacks notice and actual knowledge of
the trial court’s judgment. See Gabe Reed Prods., LLC v. Starbase Aviation, LLC,
No. 01-12-000512-CV, 2012 WL 4857464, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
Oct. 11, 2012, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); see also JRJ Invs., Inc. v. Artemis
Glob. Bus., Inc., No. 01-19-00004-CV, 2019 WL 6315195, at *2 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 26, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.). If a party does not receive
notice or acquire actual knowledge that a judgment or appealable order was signed
within 20 days of the signing, the deadlines above shall begin on the date the party
or his counsel received notice or acquired actual knowledge, whichever is first. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 4.2(a)(1); TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a(4).
But an extension under these rules is not automatic. Griffin v. Galveston Cnty.,
No. 01-23-00377-CV, 2023 WL 5353372, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
Aug. 22, 2023, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); JRJ Invs., 2019 WL 6315195, at
*2. To extend a deadline to file a notice of appeal, a party must file a sworn motion
in the trial court to prove the date on which he received notice or acquired actual
knowledge of the trial court’s judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.2(b); TEX. R. CIV. P.
2 306a(5). After a hearing on the motion, the trial court must sign a written order
specifying the date when the party or the party’s attorney first received notice or
acquired actual knowledge of the trial court’s judgment. TEX. R. APP. P. 4.2(c).
Here, the trial court signed the order denying TEA’s plea to the jurisdiction
on April 5, 2024. Therefore, TEA’s notice of appeal was due by April 25, 2024, or
by May 10, 2024, with a 15-day extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b), 26.3. TEA
did not file its notice of appeal until May 16, 2024. Without a timely filed notice of
appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1; In re
United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 307 S.W.3d 299, 307 (Tex. 2010).
On July 30, 2024, we notified TEA that its appeal was subject to dismissal for
want of jurisdiction unless it filed a response showing grounds for continuing the
appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). TEA filed a response alleging that the parties
were never served with the order by the district court, and therefore, it was unaware
of the trial court’s order denying its plea to the jurisdiction until corresponding with
appellees’ counsel on May 8, 2024. But TEA fails to demonstrate, and the record
does not show, that it filed a sworn motion establishing the date it first received
notice or actual knowledge of the judgment, or that the trial court signed a written
order specifying such date. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.2(b); TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a(5).
Because TEA did not follow the procedures required by Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 4.2 and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a to gain additional
3 time to perfect its appeal, TEA’s deadline for filing the notice of appeal was not
extended. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.2(b); TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a(5); Gabe, 2012 WL
4857464, at *1. Thus, TEA’s notice of appeal filed on May 16, 2024 was untimely,
and we lack jurisdiction over TEA’s attempted appeal. See Mem’l Hosp. of
Galveston Cnty. v. Gillis, 741 S.W.2d 364, 365 (Tex. 1987) (per curiam) (holding
that requirements of Rule 306a(5) are jurisdictional); Smith v. Aldine Indep. Sch.
Dist., No. 01-17-00700-CV, 2017 WL 5623579, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] Nov. 21, 2017, pet. denied) (per curiam) (mem. op.).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 42.3(a). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Hightower and Countiss.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Texas Education Agency v. Excellence 2000 INC. and Sherwin Allen, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/texas-education-agency-v-excellence-2000-inc-and-sherwin-allen-texapp-2024.