TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00050-CV

Thomas Kam, Appellant

v.

Ken Paxton and Jeff Leach, Appellees

FROM THE 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY 

NO. D-1-GN-22-001702, THE HONORABLE J. DAVID PHILLIPS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On January 19, 2024, Thomas Kam filed a notice of appeal. Kam appeals from 

the trial court’s September 25, 2023 orders granting the appellees’ pleas to the jurisdiction. 

These orders constitute the trial court’s final judgment because they dismiss his claims against 

appellees “with prejudice in their entirety.” See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 

(Tex. 2001) (“A judgment that finally disposes of all remaining parties and claims, based on the 

record in the case, is final, regardless of its language.”). Because the orders were signed on 

September 25, 2023, and Kam’s motion for new trial was timely filed on October 2, 2023, the 

notice of appeal was due to be filed on or before December 27, 2023. See Tex. R. App. P. 

26.1(a)(1) (requiring notice of appeal to be filed within 90 days after judgment is signed if party 

timely files motion for new trial); id. R. 4.1(a) (extending deadline for filing “to the end of the 

next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday”).

On May 6, 2024, after an initial review of the clerk’s record, the Clerk of this 

Court sent Kam a letter informing him that the Court appears to lack jurisdiction over the appeal 
2

for the reasons stated above and requesting a response informing us of any basis that exists for 

jurisdiction. Kam’s response indicates that he believes his notice of appeal is timely because he 

filed it on January 19, 2024, after the trial court signed an order denying his motion for new trial 

on January 10, 2024.1 This response does not present any information that allows the Court to

extend the deadline to file the notice of appeal. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1(a)(1) 

requires the notice of appeal to be filed within 90 days after the judgment is signed if a party 

timely files a motion for new trial. See Farmer v. Ben E. Keith Co., 907 S.W.2d 495, 496 (Tex. 

1995) (per curiam) (explaining that appellate timetable runs from date of signing of judgment or 

order disposing of all claims and parties).

Kam’s January 19, 2024 notice of appeal is untimely, and we therefore lack 

jurisdiction over this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b) (providing that filing notice of appeal 

invokes appellate court’s jurisdiction); id. R. 2 (establishing that appellate court may not alter 

time for perfecting appeal in civil case). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. See id. R. 42.3(a).

__________________________________________

Gisela D. Triana, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Theofanis

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: May 24, 2024

1

 Kam’s motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law on December 11, 2023, 

so the trial court’s January 10, 2024 order denying the motion had no additional effect. Compare

Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(c) (establishing that if motion for new trial is not determined by written 

order signed within 75 days after judgment was signed, it is overruled by operation of law) with

Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(e) (establishing that when party timely files motion for new trial, trial court 

has plenary power to grant new trial until 30 days after motion is overruled “either by a written 

and signed order or by operation of law, whichever comes first”).