### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00253- CV

P KWF GP , LLC, App ellant

v. Aqua L and L akeway Medical Developm ent, LLC, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 261 ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-1 3-0 0426 2, H ONO RAB LE GISELA D. TRI ANA, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
A q ua L and L akew ay Medica l Deve lopment, L L C file d a mo ti o n to d is mi s s th is a p p e a l for lack of jurisdiction, arg uing that the notice of appea l filed by PKWF GP, L L C is untimely
. See Tex. R. App. P . 26.1. For the re asons that follow, we will gr ant the motion. After the time for filing a notice of appea l and seeking an extension of time to file the notice of appea l have expired, a party cannot invoke an appellate court’s jurisdiction. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W .2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997); see also Tex. R. App. P
. 25.1(b) ( filing of notice of appea l invokes appellate court’s jurisdiction over parties)
. Her e, PKWF filed a notice of appea l on April 23, 2014, challeng ing a Dec ember 4, 2013 defa ult judgme nt taken ag ainst it by Aqua L and in the underly

ing suit naming multipl e defe ndants. The defa ult judgme nt ag ainst PKWF beca me final when the tr ial court sig ned an or der of sever ance on Dec ember 20, 2013. That day , PKWF filed a
m o t i on for new trial in the orig inal cause rathe r than the sever ed cause . PKWF set a h ea ri n g o n its motion, the trial court held a hear ing, and the motion was denied by opera tion of law onMarc h 6, 2014. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(c) (motion for newtrial overr uled by opera tion of law if not determined by

written orde r within seventy -five da y s after judgme nt is signed)
. The timely filing of a motion for new trial extends the appellate timetable by 90 day s. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a) (ce rtain postjudgment motions extend time for filing notice of appea l). Howeve r, even if PKWF relied on its filing of the motion for new trial in the orig inal cause to extend the deadline for filing its notice of appea l, the notice of appea l w ould ha ve been due on Marc h 20, 2014, ninety day s afte r the signing of the Dec ember 20, 2013 sever ance order
. See id
. PKWF might have obtained an extension of t ime for filing i ts notice of appe al until April 4, 2014, but that time has also expired. See Tex. R. App. P
. 26.3 (notice- of-a ppeal deadline m ay b e ex t ended if, within fiftee n day s afte r deadline, appellant files notice of appea l in trial court and files proper motion for extension of time in appellate court). PKWF’s notice of appea l w as not f iled until Apr il 23, 2014. On May 6, 2014, we reque sted that PKWF file a response to Aqua L and’s motion by May 16, 2014. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(a) . PKWF did not file any response . Be cause PKWF’s April 23, 2014 notice of appea l from the Dec ember 20, 2013 order finalizing the defa

ult judgme nt is untimely , we lack jurisdiction over this appea l. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b), 26.1; Verburgt , 959 S.W .2d at 617. W e gra n t Aq u a L and’s motion and dismiss this appea l for wa

nt of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(a)
.

J eff Rose, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose Dismissed on Appellee’ s Motion Filed: May

30, 2014 2