Lone Star Sportsman, Inc. D/B/A Alan Warren Outdoors v. Mike Malik D/B/A Paradice Hunt Club ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              Mike Malik
    Fourth Court of Appeals
    San Antonio, Texas
    October 9, 2013
    No. 04-13-00541-CV
    LONE STAR SPORTSMAN, INC. d/b/a Alan Warren Outdoors,
    Appellant
    v.
    Mike MALIK d/b/a Paradice Hunt Club,
    Appellee
    From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 2012-CI-19979
    Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding
    ORDER
    Sitting:       Karen Angelini, Justice
    Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
    Marialyn Barnard, Justice
    This is an appeal from a final judgment dismissing claims brought by appellant Lone Star
    Sportsman, Inc. against appellee Mike Malik d/b/a Paradice Hunt Club. Three motions have been
    filed in this appeal. After considering the motions and the responses to the motions, we make the
    following rulings.
    First, appellant filed a motion to refer this appeal to mediation. Appellee, however, filed
    an Alternative Dispute Resolution Addendum indicating his belief that mediation would not be a
    beneficial tool in the resolution of this appeal. We, therefore, DENY appellant’s motion to refer
    this appeal to mediation.
    Second, appellant filed a motion to direct the trial court to file findings of fact and
    conclusions of law. We conclude the trial court was not required to file findings of fact and
    conclusions of law in this case. See In re Estate of Davis, 
    216 S.W.3d 537
    , 542 (Tex. App.—
    Texarkana 2007, pet. denied) (concluding the trial court was not required to file findings of fact
    and conclusions of law on a special appearance ruling); Niehaus v. Cedar Bridge, Inc., 
    208 S.W.3d 575
    , 579 n.5 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, no pet.) (“Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 296
    and 297 do not impose any duty on the trial court to file findings of fact and conclusions of law
    where there has been no trial…”). We, therefore, DENY appellant’s motion to direct the trial
    court to file findings of fact and conclusions of law.
    Finally, appellee filed a request to dismiss this appeal, alleging that the notice of appeal
    was untimely. Appellee’s request is based on the premise that this is an accelerated appeal from
    an interlocutory order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b) (stating the notice of appeal in an accelerated
    appeal must be filed within 20 days after the judgment or order is signed). Appellee is mistaken.
    This appeal is an appeal from a final judgment. Appellee filed a special appearance that was
    sustained by the trial court on May 14, 2013. The trial court signed a final judgment dismissing
    appellant’s cause on May 15, 2013. Appellant then filed a timely request for findings of fact and
    conclusions of law and a timely motion for new trial, which extended the time for filing the
    notice of appeal until 90 days after the judgment was signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a).
    Appellant filed its notice of appeal on August 9, 2013. Appellant’s notice of appeal was therefore
    timely. See 
    id. We, therefore,
    DENY appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal.
    Appellant’s brief is due no later than October 17, 2013. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a).
    PER CURIAM
    Attested to: _____________________________
    Keith E. Hottle
    Clerk of Court
    MINUTES
    Court of Appeals
    Fourth Court of Appeals District
    San Antonio, Texas
    October 9, 2013
    No. 04-13-00541-CV
    LONE STAR SPORTSMAN, INC. d/b/a Alan Warren Outdoors,
    Appellant
    v.
    Mike MALIK d/b/a Paradice Hunt Club,
    Appellee
    From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 2012-CI-19979
    Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding
    ORDER
    Sitting:       Karen Angelini, Justice
    Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
    Marialyn Barnard, Justice
    This is an appeal from a final judgment dismissing claims brought by appellant Lone Star
    Sportsman, Inc. against appellee Mike Malik d/b/a Paradice Hunt Club. Three motions have been
    filed in this appeal. After considering the motions and the responses to the motions, we make the
    following rulings.
    First, appellant filed a motion to refer this appeal to mediation. Appellee, however, filed
    an Alternative Dispute Resolution Addendum indicating his belief that mediation would not be a
    beneficial tool in the resolution of this appeal. We, therefore, DENY appellant’s motion to refer
    this appeal to mediation.
    Second, appellant filed a motion to direct the trial court to file findings of fact and
    conclusions of law. We conclude the trial court was not required to file findings of fact and
    conclusions of law in this case. See In re Estate of Davis, 
    216 S.W.3d 537
    , 542 (Tex. App.—
    Texarkana 2007, pet. denied) (concluding the trial court was not required to file findings of fact
    and conclusions of law on a special appearance ruling); Niehaus v. Cedar Bridge, Inc., 
    208 S.W.3d 575
    , 579 n.5 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, no pet.) (“Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 296
    and 297 do not impose any duty on the trial court to file findings of fact and conclusions of law
    where there has been no trial…”). We, therefore, DENY appellant’s motion to direct the trial
    court to file findings of fact and conclusions of law.
    Finally, appellee filed a request to dismiss this appeal, alleging that the notice of appeal
    was untimely. Appellee’s request is based on the premise that this is an accelerated appeal from
    an interlocutory order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b) (stating the notice of appeal in an accelerated
    appeal must be filed within 20 days after the judgment or order is signed). Appellee is mistaken.
    This appeal is an appeal from a final judgment. Appellee filed a special appearance that was
    sustained by the trial court on May 14, 2013. The trial court signed a final judgment dismissing
    appellant’s cause on May 15, 2013. Appellant then filed a timely request for findings of fact and
    conclusions of law and a timely motion for new trial, which extended the time for filing the
    notice of appeal until 90 days after the judgment was signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a).
    Appellant filed its notice of appeal on August 9, 2013. Appellant’s notice of appeal was therefore
    timely. See 
    id. We, therefore,
    DENY appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal.
    Appellant’s brief is due no later than October 17, 2013. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a).
    PER CURIAM
    Attested to: _/s/ Keith E. Hottle
    Keith E. Hottle
    Clerk of Court
    ENTERED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013.
    VOL. _____ PAGE ______
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-13-00541-CV

Filed Date: 10/9/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015