### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 24

- 00050

- CV

Thomas Kam , Appellant

v.
Ken Paxton and Jeff Leach , Appellee s

FROM THE 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D

- 1

- GN

- 22

- 001702 , THE HONORABLE J. DAVID PHILLIPS , JUDGE PRESI D ING

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

On January 19, 2024, Th omas Kam filed a notice of appeal

. Kam appeal s from
the trial court ’ s September 25, 2 023 orders granting the app ellees ’ pleas to the jurisdiction

. These orders constitute the trial cou rt ’ s final judgment because they dismiss his claims against appellees “ with prejudice in their en tirety

. ” 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

rec ord in the case, is final, regardless of its language. ” ). Because the orders were si gned on September 25, 2023, and Kam ’ s motion for new trial was timely filed on October 2, 2023, the
notice of appeal was du e to be filed on or b efore December 27, 2023

. S ee 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, Sund ay, or legal holiday”).
On May 6, 2024, a fter an initial review of the clerk ’ s record, the Clerk o f this
Court sent Kam a letter informing h im that the Court appears to lack jurisdiction over the appeal2 for t he reasons stated above and requesting a respons e i nform ing us of any basis that exists for jurisdiction. Kam ’ s response indicates that he believe s his notice of appeal is timely because he filed it on January 19, 2024, after the trial court signed an ord er denying his mo tion for new trial on January 1 0, 2024. 1 This response does not pr esent any information that allows the Court to
extend the deadline to file the notic e of appeal. Texas Rule of Appellate Proce dure 26.1 (a)(1) requir e s the notice of appeal to be filed within 90 days after the judgment i s s igned if a party timely files a motion for new tria l

. 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 j udgment or order disposing of all claims and parties )

. Ka m ’ s January 1 9, 2024 notic e of appeal is untimely, and we therefore lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b) (p roviding that filing n otice o f appeal invokes appellate court ’ s jurisd iction); id. R. 2 (establishing that appella te cour t 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. Tria na , Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices T riana a nd 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 ord er denying the motion ha d no a dditional effect

. Com pare Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(c) (establishing that if motio n for new trial is not determined by written order sig ned within 75 days after judgment was signe d, it is overruled by operation of law ) with Tex. R . Civ. P. 329b( e ) ( esta blishing that when party time ly fi le s motion for new trial, trial court has plenary po wer to grant new trial until 30 days after motion is overruled “ either by a written and signed orde r or by operation of law , whichever comes first ” ).