Opinion issued February 24, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 15 - 00011 - CV

——————————— BOB DEUELL , Appella nt

V. TEXAS RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE, INC. , Appell e e On Appeal from the 152nd District Court

Harris C ounty, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2014 - 32179
MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Bob Deuell, seeks to appeal the purported denial of his motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizen s Participation Act as codified in Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice and Reme dies Code (anti

- SLAPP motion)
. Appellee, Texas Right to Life Committee , Inc. , has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal , contending2

that we lack jurisdiction because Deuell’s anti

- SLAPP motion , though denied as moot by a federal district court in an order remanding the case, was neither denied by the trial court below n or overruled by operation of law. We conclude that the anti

- SLAPP motion has not been denied or overruled by operation of law as required to trigger the right to an interlocutory appeal under Texas Civil Practice
an d Remedies Code section 51.014(a )(12) . We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Discussion If a party files a motion to dismiss based on Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 27.003, a hearing on the motio n must be set not later than the 60 th day after the date of service of the motion
. See T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE Ann. § 27.004 (a) (West 2015). This 60

- day time f rame may be extended under certain circumstances as provided by statute, but “in no event s hall the hearing occur more than 90 days after ser vice of the motion , ” unless the trial court allows discovery under s ection 27.006(b), in which case the hearing may occur no later than 120 days after service of the motion. Id . § 27.004. While section 2 7.004 sets forth the deadlines by which a hearing on the motion must take place, section 27.005 addresses the deadline by which the trial court must rule on the motion. See id
. Pursuant to section 27.005, “The court must rule on a motion under Section 2 7.003 not later than the 30 th day following3

the date of t he hearing on the motion.” Id
. §27.005 (a). And s ection 27.008 describes the consequence of a trial court’s failure to rule on the motion within 30 days of the hearing : the motion is considered to h ave been denied by operation of law and the moving party may appeal. Id
. § 2 7. 008 (a) ; see also T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 51.014(a)(12) ( authorizing appeal from an interlocutory order that denies a motion to dismiss filed under s ection 27
. 003). T hus, a party’s right to take an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a s ection 27.003 motion can be triggered by two events : 1) an express denial of the motion by the trial court below, or 2) the failure of the trial court below to rule on the motion w ithin 30 days following the hearing on the motion. Id
. §§ 27.005, 27.008 ; 51.014(a)(12)
. Here, neither of the events that trigger the right to an interlocutory appeal has occurred
. Deu e ll filed his s ection 27.003 m otion in the trial court below on Septem ber 5, 2014, and the motion was set for hearing on September 26, 2014 , which was within the time frame prescribed by s ection 27.004
. But the case was removed to federal court on September 25 , 2014, the day before the hearing was to be held , and the trial court below neither held a hearing nor ruled on the motion before the case was removed
. After the removal , Deuell f iled two motion s asking the federal district court to dismiss under section 27.003 , but the federal district court did not rule on the meri ts . Rather, o n December 23, 2014, it entered an order remanding the case and4

denying Deuell’s s ection 27.003 motion to dismiss as moot in light of the remand
. Shortly after remand, and before the trial court below took any post
- removal action in this cas e, Beuell filed his notice of interlocutory appeal
. Because the trial court below has neither exp ressly denied Beuell’s s ection 27.003 motion to dismiss nor failed to rule on the motion within 30 days following the date of a hearing on the motion, the Tex as Civil Practice and Remedies Code does not permit Beuell’s attempted interlocutory appeal. See id. §§ 27.005, 27.008, 51.014(a)(12). 1 We therefore grant Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Jurisdiction. We dismi ss all pending motions as mo ot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justice s Jennings, Higley, and Huddle.

1 Beuell cont ends that a ppellee should be estopped from arguing tha t we lack jurisdiction because a ppellee previously asserted in its court papers below, and in a joint discovery /case management plan in the federal district court, that Beuell’s motion had been overruled by operation of law. We reject Beuell’s contention because a party to a suit cannot confer jurisdiction on this Court by agreement, consent, or estoppel. See Jac k M. Sanders Family Lt d
. P ’ ship v. Roger T. Fridholm Revocable, Living Trust , 434 S.W.3d 236, 240 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1 st Dist.] 2014, no pet.).