### NUM BER 13-09- 260- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS
T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS
C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG

OLIV IA SA LIN A S, IN DIVID UA LL Y, A ND A pp ellan t, ON BEHA LF OF THE ESTA TE OF F R A N C IS C A

P ER EZ , D EC EA SE D , E T A L .,
v . CHRISTUS SPO HN HOSPI TA L M EM ORIA L, ET A L., A pp ellees

.

On ap pe al f rom th e 9 4th D istrict Co urt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .


## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON
B ef o re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es Y añ ez a n d V el a

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la App ellant , Oliv ia Salina s, individually , and on beha lf of the esta te of Fr a n c isca P e r e z , d e c e a s e d , a n d o n b e h a lf o f a ll wro n gf u l d e a t h b e n e f ic ia ri e s o f Fr a n c is c a P e re z,2

decea sed, i ncl udi ng , but not li mite d to, Ol iv ia Sa linas , Es par anz a Gon z ale s, Jul ian Cam acho and M a n uel Cam acho , f iled suit alleging health care liability claims against Chr is tus Spohn H ospi tal M emori a l, Ch ris tu s S p o h n Ho sp it a l Co rp u s Ch ris ti , Ch ris tu s S pohn Hea lt h Sy ste m Co rp or ati on doi ng busi ness as Spohn Me mori al Hos pit al, Chr is tus Spohn Hos pit al Me mori al, Chr is tus Spohn H ospi tal C or pus Chr is ti , C hr is tus Spohn H eal th S y ste m Corporat ion, Christus Sp ohn Health System , S p ohn Memo rial Hospital (collectiv ely “C hr is tus Spohn ”) , Ge o rge M ag el, M .D ., Dan ell Stu ck ey , M .D ., Rob ert C ar o, M .D ., and Dar ri ck N els on, M .D

. W e di smi ss for l ack of jur is dic ti on. T he trial cou rt ente red an order of non -suit disposin g o f

t h e cla ims against Drs. Ma g el, Stu ck ey , C ar o, an d N els on on Janua ry 24, 2 0 0 9

. O n Febr uar y 9, 2009, the t ri al

cour t g ra nted Spohn’ s p lea t o t h e j ur is dic ti on. The or der g ra nti ng the ple a to the jur is dic ti on, w hen combin ed w it h the earl ier order of non- sui t, dis posed of all par ti es and is sues i n thi s c ase. Ac cor din g ly , t he oper ati v e dat e f or determi nin g thi s C our

t’ s j ur is dic ti on is F ebr uar

y 9, 2009. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 3 06a. On Ma rc h 12, 2009, appellants ele ctr oni cal ly

fil ed th eir

moti on for re cons ide ra ti on and n e w tr ial

. Appel lan t’ s n oti ce of appeal w as ele ctr oni cal ly fil ed on Ma y

8, 2009. This C our

t s ent a defect let ter

to appel lan t, n o ti f ying h er that i t app ear ed th at t he noti ce of ap peal w as lat e becau se the moti on for new tr ial w as unti mely

. Ap p e lla n t was

re q uir ed to fil e a motion f or new tri al w it hin thir

ty day s after the j udg ment w as si g ned. Id

. at R . 329 b( a)

. Appel lan t’ s deadl ine for fili ng the moti on for new tr ial w as Ma rc h 11, 2009. Id

. a t R. 4

. Ru le 3 0 6 a (1 ) p ro vid e s t h a t t h e “ d a t e o f ju d gm e n t o r o rd e r i s si gn e d a s sh o wn of rec or d s hal l deter mine the b eg inn ing of the p er iod s p resc rib e d by thes e r ule s for

the court’s plenary power to g rant a new trial . . .” Id . at R. 306a(1 ). Lik ew is e, Tex as Rul e of3

Ci v il Pr ocedu re 329b( a) pr ov ide s t hat “ [a] moti on for new tr ial , i f f il ed, shal l be fil ed pr ior to

or w ithin th irty

days aft er the jud gmen t or othe r ord e r c om plaine d of is si gned.” Id . at R. 329b( a)

. Fur

ther , Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e Pr ocedu re 26.1 pr ov ide s t hat t he dead li ne for
any moti on i s c alc ula ted fr om the si g nin g of the j udg ment. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26. 1(a). App ellant respon ded to the noti ce of def ect, a rg uing that beca use th e trial court noti fied her

of it s g ra nt of the pl ea to the jur is dic ti o n b y f a csimi le on F ebr uar y 10, 2009, “three d ays w ere ad ded to the t ime p eriod f or f iling a mo tion f or n ew trial.” This is incorrect beca use it ignores t he clea r dictates o f rules 306 a an d 32 9b(a ) of the rules of

civ il
proce dure and rule 26. 1 of the app ellate rules. Similarly , app ellant ’s reliance on the W aco

cour t’ s d eci si on i n In r

e M ar ri age of Br own, 187 S .W .3d 143 ( Tex . Ap p.–W aco 2006, no pet.) is not per suas iv e. In Br own , the motion f or

new tri al w as ti mely

fil ed pur suant to the mail box r ule

. Id . at 144. H er e, ho w ev er , t he moti on for new t ria l was el ect ro nic all y fil ed one day l ate. An untim e ly f ile d m o tion for new tr ial does not ex tend the d eadl ine for appeal

. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 3 29b( a) ( pr ov idi ng that a mot ion f o r n e w tr ial “ shal l” be fil ed

w it hin thi rt y

day s a fter t he j udg ment i s s ig ned)

. Beca use the m otion f or n ew trial was un time ly , app ellant ’s n otice of app eal w as also unti mely

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 2 6.1( a)

. Therefor e, w e ar e w it hout jur is dic ti on to co nsi der thi s a ppeal and dis mis s t he c ause for l ack of jur is dic ti on.

RO SE VELA J u s t i c e

Del iv er ed and filed the 25th day of Febr uar

y , 201 0.