DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 28, 2021 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-00865-CV TAILIM SONG D/B/A TAILIM SONG LAW FIRM, Appellant V. JAY JUNG, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-19-02129-A MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Goldstein, and Smith Opinion by Justice Smith By notice of appeal filed Sept ember 28, 2020, appellant challen ges the trial court’s September 17, 2020 order denying his motion to reinstat e the underlying suit, which was dismissed in its entirety for want of prosecution on December 19, 2019. Because the notice of appeal was untimely filed, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a); Brashear v. Victoria Gardens of McKinney,
L.L.C ., 302 S.W.3d 542, 545 (Tex. App. —Dallas 2009, no pet.) (op. on reh’g) (timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional).2 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 t he final judgment disposing of all parties and claims 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 certainty in appellate procedure a re nowhere more important than in determining the time for perfecting appeal.”) ; Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps , 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (judgment is final when it di sposes of all claims between all partie s). When, as here, a post-judgm ent motion such as a motion to reinstate or motion for new trial is filed, the deadl ine is ninety days, or with an extension motion 105 days, from the date the judgment i s signed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 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 appealab le from the final 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.). Because the notice of appeal here was filed more than nine mont hs after the order of dismissal, we questioned our jurisdiction over this ap peal. In response, appellant filed a seven- page letter brief, with exhibits, premi sed on the assertion that no final judgment existed, and the appellate deadlines were not triggered, until the3 trial court signed the order denying the motion to reinstate. 1 The order dismissing the underlying suit for want of prosecution, however, was the f inal judgment as it disposed of the entire suit. See Tipps , 842 S.W.2d at 272; Tex. Attorney Gen. v. Daurbigny , 702 S.W.2d 298, 300 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, no w rit). And, as stated above, it triggere d the appellate deadlines. Ap pellant’s claim has no merit. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a); Brashear , 302 S.W.3d at 545.

200865F.P05

1 Appellant asserts neither the trial court nor he intended the order of dismissal to be the final judgment and explains the trial court did not rule on the motion to reinstat e until September because of the Covid-19 pandemic. He notes that between the date the motion to reinstat e was filed, January 13, 2020, and the date the order denying the motion w as signed, September 17, he commu nicated numerous times with the trial court coordinator regarding the motion and the hearing date on the motion was reset three times. /Craig Smith/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE4 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
TAILIM SONG D/B/A TAILIM SONG LAW FIRM, Appellant
No. 05-20-00865-CV V. JAY JUNG, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-19-02129- A. Opinion delivered by Justice Smith, Justices Molberg and Goldstein participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
We ORDER that appellee Jay Jung recover his costs, if any, of this appe al from appellant Tailim Song d/ b/a Tailim Song Law Firm.
Judgment entered April 28, 2021.