Lampasas Drug Company LTD. D/B/A Cattles Pharmacy v. Julia Santamaria, Individually and as Next Friend J. B., a Minor ( 2024 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-24-00140-CV
LAMPASAS DRUG COMPANY, LTD.
D/B/A CATTLES PHARMACY, APPELLANT
V.
JULIA SANTAMARIA, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 27th District Court
Lampasas County, Texas
Trial Court No. 23150, Honorable John T. Gauntt, Presiding
July 23, 2024
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.
Appellant, Lampasas Drug Company, Ltd. d/b/a Cattles Pharmacy (“Lampasas”),
appeals from the trial court’s Order Overruling Defendant’s Objections to Chapter 74
Expert Report of Sergei Grando, M.D.1 We dismiss the untimely appeal for want of
jurisdiction.
We previously remanded this cause to the trial court to rule on Lampasas’ Rule
306a motion for additional time to file a notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.2(a); TEX.
1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the
Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
R. CIV. P. 306a.5. On remand, the trial court issued an Order Denying Rule 306a(5)
Motion and findings and conclusions of law. According to these findings, the trial court
signed the Order Overruling Defendant’s Objections to Chapter 74 Expert Report of
Sergei Grando, M.D. on February 6, 2024. The order was delivered electronically that
day to all parties, including Lampasas’ counsel. Consequently, Lampasas’ notice of
appeal was due twenty days thereafter, by February 26, 2024. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. &
REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(9) (permitting interlocutory appeal), 74.351(b); TEX. R. APP.
P. 26.1(b), 28.1(b) (concerning accelerated appeals). Lampasas did not file a notice of
appeal until March 25, 2024, after the fifteen-day extension period. See TEX. R. APP. P.
26.3.
A timely notice of appeal is essential to invoking our jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 25.1(b), 26.1; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616–17 (Tex. 1997).
Notwithstanding that the Texas Supreme Court has directed us to construe the Rules of
Appellate Procedure reasonably and liberally so that the right of appeal is not lost by
imposing requirements not absolutely necessary to effect the purpose of those rules, we
are prohibited from enlarging the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case. See
Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 616–17; TEX. R. APP. P. 2 (providing that we may not suspend a
rule’s operation or order a different procedure to alter the time for perfecting an appeal).
Accordingly, we reinstate the appeal, grant Appellee Julia Santamaria’s
previously-filed motion to dismiss, and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.2
The appeal is dismissed.
Per Curiam
2 We also deny Lampasas’ pending motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal.
2