TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-15-00637-CV
Airlinx Communications, Inc., Appellant
v.
Ultra Electronics Advanced Tactical Systems, Inc., Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 353RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GN-12-002873, HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Airlinx Communications, Inc. seeks to appeal a final judgment signed
on July 15, 2015. According to the clerk’s record, no motion for new trial or other post-judgment
motion was filed. See Tex. R. App. P 26.1(a) (when certain post-judgment motions are filed, notice
of appeal is due within ninety days after judgment is signed). Consequently, Airlinx’s deadline to
file its notice of appeal was August 14, 2015. See id. R. 26.1 (generally, notice of appeal must be
filed within thirty days after judgment is signed). Airlinx’s notice of appeal was not filed until
October 7, 2015.
The Clerk of this Court notified Airlinx, by letter, that it appeared that Airlinx’s
notice of appeal was not timely filed and, as a result, that the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider
this appeal. Airlinx responded in writing, asserting that its notice of appeal should be deemed timely
under the mailbox rule, Rule 9.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 9.2. In support
of its assertion, Airlinx submitted the affidavit of its President, Tjalling Hoiska, stating that “the
notice of appeal for this trial court case was mailed to the district clerk’s office on or before
August 14, 2015.”
A document is deemed timely filed under mailbox rule only when (1) the document
is properly deposited in the mail or delivered to a commercial delivery service on or before the last
day for filing and (2) the document is received by the clerk within ten days of the filing deadline.
See id. R. 9.2(b). Here, Airlinx’s notice of appeal was file stamped by the trial court clerk on
October 7, 2015, and the signature block on the notice of appeal bears Hoiska’s signature and
purports to be signed by him on October 7, 2015. Based on the record before us, we have no basis
to conclude that Airlinx’s notice of appeal was received by the trial court within ten days after
the filing deadline, but not filed by the trial court clerk until October 7, 2015. Because Airlinx’s
notice of appeal was not timely filed and the mailbox rule does not apply, this Court lacks
jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See id. R. 25.1(b). We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
See id. R. 42.3(a).
__________________________________________
Scott K. Field, Justice
Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: December 11, 2015
2