USAA Texas Lloyd's Company v. John Doe and Jane Doe, Individually and as Next Friends of XXX, a Minor ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                         John Doe and Jane Doe,
    Individually and as Next
    Friends of XXX, a
    Fourth Court of Appeals
    San Antonio, Texas
    December 18, 2015
    No. 04-15-00673-CV
    USAA TEXAS LLOYD’S COMPANY,
    Appellant
    v.
    John DOE and Jane Doe, Individually and as Next Friends of XXX, a Minor,
    Appellees
    From the County Court at Law No. 5, Bexar County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 392757
    Honorable Walden Shelton, Judge Presiding
    ORDER
    This court routinely examines the clerk’s record to determine our jurisdiction over newly-
    filed appeals. After examining the clerk’s record in this case, we issued a show cause order
    questioning our jurisdiction over this appeal because it appeared, based on the stamp placed on
    appellant’s notice of appeal by the trial court clerk, that appellant’s notice of appeal was
    untimely filed. Although the notice of appeal appeared to be untimely, it also appeared that it
    was filed within the fifteen-day grace period allowed by Rule 26.3 of the Texas Rules of
    Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. We, therefore, gave appellant an opportunity to
    file a response and offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a
    timely manner. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 
    959 S.W.2d 615
    , 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the
    predecessor to Rule 26).
    On December 15, 2015, appellant filed a response to our show cause order. In its
    response, appellant states that its notice of appeal was timely filed because it was delivered to its
    counsel’s electronic service provider in a timely manner. Furthermore, attached to appellant’s
    response is documentation establishing that appellant’s notice of appeal was in fact filed in a
    timely manner. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.2 (providing that, as a general rule, an electronically filed
    document is deemed filed when transmitted to the filing party’s electronic service provider). In
    light of the documentation provided, we conclude that appellant’s notice of appeal was timely
    filed.
    Our previous order suspending all appellate deadlines in this appeal is LIFTED.
    Appellant’s brief is due thirty days from the date of this order.
    _________________________________
    Karen Angelini, Justice
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
    court on this 18th day of December, 2015.
    ___________________________________
    Keith E. Hottle
    Clerk of Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-15-00673-CV

Filed Date: 12/18/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/29/2016