Michelin North America, Inc. v. Moises Gallegos ( 2017 )

Dismissed and Opinion Filed November 21, 2017
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-17-00617-CV
MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Appellant
V.
MOISES GALLEGOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HEIR AND AS BYSTANDER AND AS
STATUTORY BENEFICIARY OF HIS MOTHER, MARIA LUISA GALLEGOS,
DECEASED, AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARIA LUISA
GALLEGOS, DECEASED; THE ESTATE OF MARIA LUISA GALLEGOS,
DECEASED; CLAUDIO GALLEGOS AS HEIR AND AS STATUTORY BENFICIARY
OF HIS MOTHER, MARIA LUISA GALLEGOS; ROSA ISELA RAMIREZ AS HEIR
AND AS STATUTORY BENEFICIARY OF HER MOTHER, MARIA LUISA
GALLEGOS; NORA ELIA GALLEGOS AS HEIR AND AS STATUTORY
BENEFICIARY OF HER MOTHER, MARIA LUISA GALLEGOS; JUAN JOSE
GALLEGOS AS HEIR AND AS STATUTORY BENEFICIARY OF HIS MOTHER,
MARIA LUISA GALLEGOS; LEYDI ELENA GALLEGOS AS HEIR AND AS
STATUTORY BENEFICIARY OF HER MOTHER, MARIA LUISA GALLEGOS; AND
SILVIA GALLEGOS AS HEIR AND AS STATUTORY BENEFICIARY OF HER
MOTHER, MARIA LUISA GALLEGOS, Appellees
On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-05478
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Francis, and Justice Stoddart
Opinion by Justice Stoddart
This is an appeal from an amended order denying appellant’s special appearance. The
original order was signed November 9, 2016 and was not appealed. The amended order
followed appellant’s “motion to amend order and for reconsideration” and was signed May 18,
2017. It was appealed June 6, 2017, within twenty days from when it was signed.
Although an appeal from an order denying a special appearance must be filed within
twenty days of the signing of the order, appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely.
See Digges v. Knowledge Alliance, Inc., 176 S.W.3d 463, 463 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2004, no pet.) (op. on reh’g) (per curiam). Appellees assert the notice of appeal should have
been filed within twenty days of the date the original order was signed, and because it was not,
this Court lacks jurisdiction. See Brashear v. Victoria Gardens of McKinney, L.L.C., 302
S.W.3d 542, 545 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (op. on reh’g) (timely filing of notice of
appeal is jurisdictional).
An order denying a special appearance is an interlocutory order made appealable by
statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(7) (West Supp. 2016). Because
statutes authorizing interlocutory appeals are a narrow exception to the general rule that
interlocutory orders are not immediately appealable, they are narrowly construed. See City of
Houston v. Estate of Jones, 388 S.W.3d 663, 666 (Tex. 2012) (per curiam). Their purpose is to
increase efficiency of the judicial process and, as such, they generally do not allow for an
immediate appeal from an order denying a motion to reconsider an appealable interlocutory
order. See id. at 667 (“[a]llowing interlocutory appeals whenever a trial court refuses to change
its mind . . . would invite successive appeals and undermine the statute’s purpose of promoting
judicial economy.”) (quoting Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 356 (Tex.
2001)). However, when the motion to reconsider an appealable interlocutory order raises a new
ground, an order denying the motion is independently and immediately appealable. See id.; see
also City of Magnolia 4A Econ. Dev. Corp v. Smedley, No. 16-0718, 2017 WL 4848580 *3-5
(Tex. Oct. 27, 2017) (per curiam).
The record here reflects the issue in the special appearance was whether the trial court
could exercise specific jurisdiction over appellant. See Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v.
–2–
Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777, 794-95 (Tex. 2005). Appellant’s motion to amend and reconsider did
not present any new arguments. Instead, it cited to decisions issued after the original order was
signed, none of which changed the state of the law regarding specific jurisdiction.
Because the motion to amend and reconsider presented no new argument, we conclude
the amended order denying appellant’s special appearance was not independently appealable and
agree with appellees that appellant should have filed its notice of appeal within twenty days of
the signing of the original order. Accordingly, we grant appellees’ motion and dismiss the
appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
170617F.P05 /Craig Stoddart/
CRAIG STODDART
JUSTICE
–3–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC., On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District
Appellant Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-05478.
No. 05-17-00617-CV V. Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. Chief
Justice Wright and Justice Francis
MOISES GALLEGOS, INDIVIDUALLY participating.
AND AS HEIR AND AS BYSTANDER
AND AS STATUTORY BENEFICIARY
OF HIS MOTHER, MARIA LUISA
GALLEGOS, DECEASED, AND AS
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF
MARIA LUISA GALLEGOS, DECEASED;
THE ESTATE OF MARIA LUISA
GALLEGOS, DECEASED; CLAUDIO
GALLEGOS AS HEIR AND AS
STATUTORY BENFICIARY OF HIS
MOTHER, MARIA LUISA GALLEGOS;
ROSA ISELA RAMIREZ AS HEIR AND
AS STATUTORY BENEFICIARY OF HER
MOTHER, MARIA LUISA GALLEGOS;
NORA ELIA GALLEGOS AS HEIR AND
AS STATUTORY BENEFICIARY OF HER
MOTHER, MARIA LUISA GALLEGOS;
JUAN JOSE GALLEGOS AS HEIR AND
AS STATUTORY BENEFICIARY OF HIS
MOTHER, MARIA LUISA GALLEGOS;
LEYDI ELENA GALLEGOS AS HEIR
AND AS STATUTORY BENEFICIARY
OF HER MOTHER, MARIA LUISA
GALLEGOS; AND SILVIA GALLEGOS
AS HEIR AND AS STATUTORY
BENEFICIARY OF HER MOTHER,
MARIA LUISA GALLEGOS, Appellees
–4–
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
We ORDER appellees Moises Gallegos, Individually and as Heir and as Bystander and
as Statutory Beneficiary of His Mother, Maria Luisa Gallegos, Deceased, and as Representative
of the Estate of Maria Luisa Gallegos, Deceased; The Estate of Maria Luisa Gallegos, Deceased;
Claudio Gallegos as Heir and as Statutory Beneficiary of His Mother, Maria Luisa Gallegos;
Rosa Isela Ramirez as Heir and as Statutory Beneficiary of Her Mother, Maria Luisa Gallegos;
Nora Elia Gallegos as Heir and as Statutory Beneficiary of Her Mother, Maria Luisa Gallegos;
Juan Jose Gallegos as Heir and as Statutory Beneficiary of His Mother, Maria Luisa Gallegos;
Leydi Elena Gallegos as Heir and as Statutory Beneficiary of Her Mother, Maria Luisa Gallegos;
and Silvia Gallegos as Heir and as Statutory Beneficiary of Her Mother, Maria Luisa Gallegos
recover their costs of this appeal from appellant Michelin North America, Inc.
Judgment entered this 21st day of November, 2017.
–5–