NUMBER 13-13-00105-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
AMF MECHANICAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
NORMA L. BERMUDEZ, APPELLEE.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 404th District Court
of Cameron County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, AMF Mechanical Corporation, attempted to perfect an appeal from an
order signed January 10, 2013, denying its motion for summary judgment. Upon review
of the documents before the Court, it appeared that the appeal was not timely perfected.
Appellant was advised that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected
within ten days from the date of receipt of the Court’s directive.
On February 14, 2013, appellant filed an opposed motion to extend time to file
notice of appeal. Appellee has responded that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the
appeal because it is not an interlocutory appeal that is specifically authorized by Section
51.014 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Appellant has replied that the
order is appealable pursuant to Section 51.014(d)(1),(2) in that the order involves a
controlling question of law in which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion
and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate
termination of the litigation. Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss.
Appeals from interlocutory orders, when allowed by statute, are accelerated
appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1. In order to perfect an accelerated appeal of an
interlocutory order, the party is required to file a notice of appeal “within 20 days after the
judgment or order is signed.” Id. at R. 26.1(b). Appellant filed a motion for extension of
time under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3. See id. at R. 26.3; see also Houser
v. McElveen, 243 S.W.3d 646, 646-47 (Tex. 2008) (stating that a notice of appeal should
be considered timely if filed within fifteen days after the filing deadline and accompanied
by a motion for extension of time with a reasonable explanation for the delay). The order
was signed on January 10, 2013, and twenty days thereafter is January 30, 2013.
Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on February 12, 2013, within fifteen days of January
30, 2013.
In terms of appellate jurisdiction, appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review
final judgments and certain interlocutory orders identified by statute. See Lehmann v.
Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §
51.012 and § 51.014 (West Supp. 2011). Under the 2011 amendment to Section
2
51.014(d) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, a trial court may, by written order,
permit an appeal from an order that is not otherwise appealable. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.
CODE ANN. § 51.014(d). Section 51.014(f) provides that an appellate court may accept
an appeal permitted by Subsection (d) if the appealing party, not later than the 15th day
after the date the trial court signs the order to be appealed, files in the court of appeals
having appellate jurisdiction over the action an application for interlocutory appeal
explaining why an appeal is warranted under Subsection (d).
Review of the clerk’s record indicates that appellant has not obtained the trial
court’s permission to appeal. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 168 (“On a party’s motion or on its
own initiative, a trial court may permit an appeal from an interlocutory order that is not
otherwise appealable, as provided by statute. Permission must be stated in the order to
be appealed.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(a)(“When a trial court has permitted an appeal from
an interlocutory order that would not otherwise be appealable, a party seeking to appeal
must petition the court of appeals for permission to appeal.”). Accordingly, the
interlocutory order appellant seeks to appeal is not appealable.
The Court, having considered the clerk’s record, motions and responses, is of the
opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the
appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
Appellee’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file
notice of appeal is likewise DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
25th day of April, 2013.
3