DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 9, 2021 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-00537-CV NAIL ROAD 1, L.P., Appellant V. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-17321 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Osborne, P edersen, III, and Nowell Opinion by Justice Osborne This appeal challenges the trial court’s order denying appellan t’s motion to reinstate the underlying suit, which appellant voluntarily nons uited. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we dismiss the appeal fo r want of jurisdiction.
See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a). To ensure simplicity and certainty in determining the time for perfecting an appeal, the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure calculate the de adline for filing a notice of appeal from the date the final judgment is signed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001) (“Simplicity and–2– certainty in appellate procedure are nowhere more important tha n in determining the time for perfecting appeal.”). When a post-judgment motion suc h as a motion to reinstate or motion for new trial is filed, the deadline is nin ety days, or with an extension motion 105 days, from the date the judgment is signed

. See id. 26.1(a), 26.3. An order denying a post-judgment motion such as a motion to reinstate or motion for new trial is not separately appealable from the fina l judgment and does not start the appellate timetable. See Jarrell v. Bergdorf , 580 S.W.3d 463, 465 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist .] 2019, no pet.). The notice of appeal here was filed within thirty days of the o rder denying the motion to reinstate but 124 days after the order of nonsuit. B ecause the notice of appeal appeared untimely, we questioned our jurisdiction over t he appeal and directed the parties to file letter briefs addressing our conce rn. See Brashear v. Victoria Gardens of McKinney, L.L.C. , 302 S.W.3d 542, 545 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdicti onal). Appellant argues in its jurisdictional brief that because the u nderlying suit was voluntarily nonsuited, the opera tive order is the order denying reinstatement and the deadline for filing the notice of appeal was the date the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction over the case expire d–-thirty days after the order denying reinstatement was signed. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 329b(e) (trial court retains plenary power over case for thirty days after all post-judgment motions are overruled b y operation of law or written order, whichever occurs first). Appellant appears to r eason that the order–3– denying reinstatement should trigger the appellate deadlines be cause that is the basis for the appeal, not the voluntary nonsuit. Having an appellate deadline unique to appeals that follow volu ntary nonsuits affords no certainty or simplicity. As noted above and argued by appellee in its responsive letter brief, the appe llate rules expressly provide the deadline runs from the signing of the judgment, not the order denying the post-jud gment motion. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1; Jarrell , 580 S.W.3d at 465. As the notice of appeal here was not filed within 105 days of t he signing of the judgment–-the order of nonsuit, it was not timely, and we l ack jurisdiction over the appeal. See Brashear , 302 S.W.3d at 545. Accordingl y, we dismiss the appeal.
See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a).

200537F.P05 /Leslie Osborne/ LESLIE OSBORNE JUSTICE–4– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT NAIL ROAD 1, L.P., Appellant
No. 05-20-00537-CV V. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-17321. Opinion delivered by Justice Osborne, Justices Pedersen, III and Nowell participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
We ORDER that appellee Dallas County, Texas recover its costs, if any, of this appeal from appella nt Nail Road 1, L.P.
Judgment entered April 9, 2021.