Menchaca v. Baker Hughes Oil ( 2000 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 99-21157
Summary Calendar
Civil Docket #H-96-CV-1392
_______________________
VICENTE A. MENCHACA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS INC,
formerly known as Baker Oil Tools, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(H-96-CV-1392)
_________________________________________________________________
August 28, 2000
Before DAVIS, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Appellant Menchaca received an adverse jury verdict on
his claim that his former employer Baker Hughes fired and
discriminated against him for filing a Workers’ Compensation claim.
Because he did not timely file a motion for new trial, his notice
1
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
of appeal was also untimely, and this court lacks jurisdiction over
his appeal.
Final judgment was entered by the district court on
August 17, 1999. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59,
Menchaca had ten days to file a motion for new trial, an action
which would suspend the requirement of Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 4(a)(1) that he must file a notice of appeal within 30
days of the judgment. Menchaca did not file a timely Rule 59
motion, as his motion for new trial was filed on September 15,
1999, nearly a month after the court’s final judgment. Under FRAP
4, then, the period to file a notice of appeal expired on or about
September 16, 1999. Menchaca’s notice of appeal was not filed
until December 8, more than 100 days after the judgment was
entered.
The time limits for filing motions for new trial and
notice of appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional. Anderson v.
Pasadena I.S.D., 184 F.3d 439, 446 (5th Cir. 1999); U.S. Leather,
Inc. v. H & W Partnership, 60 F.3d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1995).
Because the notice of appeal was untimely, this court
lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be DISMISSED.
2