### 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. 03-13-00637- CV
EID Corporation, a Texas Corporat ion, an d Moham m ed S. Alhajeid, In divid ually, Appellan ts

v. The State of Texas; The City of FortWorth, Texas; The Transit Authority of For t Wort h, MTA, Texas; and Th e Special P urpose Districtof Fort Worth Cr im e Contr ol, Texas, Appellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 419 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GV-1 3-0 0016 9, H ONO RAB LE GUS J. STRAUSS JR., JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This is the second attempted appea l rela ted to a defa ult judgme nt. The appea l is untimely , and we will dism iss it for lack of jurisdiction.

BACK GR OUND Appellee s (collec tively , the State) filed the underly ing suit ag ainst EI D Corporation and Mohammed S. Alha

jeid (collec tively , EI D) for collection of delinquent sales taxes. The State obtained a defa

ult judgme nt ag ainst EI D. EI D filed t wo ap p eals rela ted to that defa ult judgme nt. The first was dismiss ed for want of prosec ution. See EID C o r p . v. State , No. 03-13-00361- CV, 2013 Tex. App. L EXI S 11255, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug

. 30, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.). I n thissecond appea l, the State arg ues as a preliminary matter that we lack jurisdiction beca use EI D did not timely perf ect its prese nt appea l. We ag ree . DISCUSSIO N EID files appeal from default judgm ent and seeks relief f rom trial court EI D filed a notice of appea l on May 23, 2 0 1 3 , ch all eng ing the State’s defa ult judgme nt. The next day , EI D filed a “Motion to Ex tend Time for Filing Post-J udg ment Remedies” alleg ing that neither EI D nor EI D’s attorney had notice of the defa ult judgme nt until May 18, 2013. See Tex. R

. Civ. P. 306a. The trial court g rante d EI D’s motion, finding that EI D rec eived actua l notice of the defa

ult judgment on May 18, 2013 and order ing that EI D’s time for reque sting postjudgment relief

, including a motion for n ew trial or motion to modify the judgme nt, was extended to J une 17, 2013. See id

.

The day befor e the deadline, EI D filed a “Motion to Vacate, Modify or Reform J udg ment, or in the Alterna tive Gra nt a New Trial or Bill of Review” (postjudgme nt motion). The State filed a response , and at a subsequent hear ing on Aug ust 26, 20 1 3 , t h e trial court signe d an order deny

ing EI D’s postjudgment motion. After the denial of its postjudgment motion and almost 1 thr ee months afte r t he J une 17 deadline for fili ng such m otions, EI D fil ed an untimely reque st for finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law. See Tex. R. C iv. P. 306a.

The motion for new trial that EI D soug ht in the alternative appea rs to have been overr

uled 1 by opera tion of law. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b( c) (motion f or new trial not r

uled on within 75 day s of signe d judgme nt considere d overr uled). Her e Aug ust 1, 2013 was the 75th day afte r EI D rec eived actua l notice of the de fault judg ment. 2Meanw hile, on Aug ust 30, 2013, we dismiss ed EI D’s appea l for failure to prosec ute

it. EID Corp. , 2013 Tex. App. L EXI S 11255, at *1. No motion for rehe aring or rec onsideration was filed, our plena

ry power expired, and manda te issued. See Tex. R. App. P . 19.1(a)

. EID files appeal from deni al of postjudgm ent m otion

EI D filed a notice of appea l on September 24, 2013 from the trial court’s Aug ust 26 order deny ing its postjudgment motion. EI D arg ues that the Aug ust 26 order “constituted

a modification of the defa ult judgme nt and established a new appellate timetable.” See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(h) (providing that “if a judgme nt is modified, corr ecte d or ref ormed in any respe ct” appellate timetable runs from date of new judgme nt). But the Aug ust 26 o rd er d i d not make any chang e to the defa ult judgme nt—the order states simply that EI D’s motion is denied. EI D also arg ues that its reque st for finding s of fac t and con cl u s i ons of law “fur ther extended the appellate timetable

an additional 90 day s to November 24, 2013.” Howeve r, the re q u es t for finding s of fac t and conclusions of law was untimely beca use it was filed almost three months afte r the J une 17 deadline for filing postjudgment motions. See Tex. R. App. P. 4.2(a) (1); Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a. Only timely reque sts for fi n d i n gs o f fac t and conclusions of l aw may extend the deadline for filing a notice of appea l. See Tex. R. App. P . 26.1(a) (4).

The State contends corr ectly that EI D’s appellate deadlines in this case are calc ulated from t h e M ay 18, 2013 date that EI D receive d actua l notice of the default judgme nt, not from the date the trial court denied EI D’s postjudgment motion. See Tex. R. App. P. 4.2(a) (1), 26.1; Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a. EI D’s postjudgment motion extended its deadline for filing a notice of appea l by 90 day s to Aug ust 16, 2013. See Tex. R

. Ap p . P

. 4.2(a) (1), 26.1(a) (1); Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(a)

. 3EI D’s appellate deadline m ight have been further ex tended i f i t h ad filed either a notice of appea l

with the trial court or a motion fo r ex t en s i o n o f time with this Court by September 3, 2013. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3 (providing that court may g rant extension of time if party files notice of appea l

or motion to extend time within 15 day s afte r deadline for filing notice of appea l); Tex. R. Civ. P. 4; Verburgt v. Dorne r , 959 S.W .2d 615, 617-18 (Te x . 1997). B ut EI D did not do so.

The notice of appea l that EI D filed on Se p t em b er 24, 2013—129 day s afte r its May 18, 2013 notice of the defa ult judgment—is untimely and thus, we lac k jurisdiction over this appea l. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b) (filing of notice of appea l invokes appellate court’s jurisdiction).

CONCLUSION We dismi ss this appeal for want 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 for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Oc tober 22, 2014

4