Court Opinion

ID: 9915737
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-08 11:07:07.863178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:13:47.279169
License: Public Domain

In the
                    Court of Appeals
            Second Appellate District of Texas
                     at Fort Worth
                  ___________________________
                       No. 02-23-00320-CV
                  ___________________________

                 MONIQUE KUSMAN, Appellant

                                 V.

BIOPRO, INC.; JEFFREY P. TAYLOR, DPM, FACFAS; AND NORTH TEXAS
                PODIATRY ASSOCIATES, P.A., Appellees

               On Appeal from the 342nd District Court
                       Tarrant County, Texas
                   Trial Court No. 342-337038-22

              Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.
          Memorandum Opinion and Order by Justice Womack
                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

                                 I. INTRODUCTION

      Through her original notice of appeal, Appellant Monique Kusman attempted

to appeal a final take-nothing judgment entered in favor of Appellee Biopro, Inc.1

Through her amended notice of appeal, Kusman attempted to appeal not only the

take-nothing judgment entered in favor of Biopro but also a previously rendered take-

nothing summary judgment entered in favor of Appellees Jeffrey P. Taylor and North

Texas Podiatry Associates, P.A. (NTPA) that had been severed from Kusman’s

litigation against Biopro. Taylor and NTPA have filed a motion to dismiss Kusman’s

appeal as it relates to them, arguing that Kusman’s notice of appeal was untimely as to

the take-nothing summary judgment entered in their favor and that we therefore lack

jurisdiction over that portion of the appeal. We agree. Accordingly, we will grant

Taylor and NTPA’s motion to dismiss, and we will dismiss the part of this appeal

challenging the summary judgment for Taylor and NTPA for want of jurisdiction.

                                 II. BACKGROUND

      In September 2022, Kusman filed suit against Biopro in trial court cause

number 342-337038-22, alleging a products liability claim. A couple of months later,

Kusman amended her petition to add certain negligence claims against Taylor and

NTPA. In December 2022, Taylor and NTPA moved for summary judgment based

      1
        Some portions of the record refer to the entity as “Biopro, Inc.” and others
refer to it as “BioPro, Inc.” We will refer to it simply as “Biopro.”

                                          2
on limitations. On May 5, 2023, the trial court granted Taylor and NTPA’s motion

for summary judgment.

      On May 31, 2023, Biopro also moved for summary judgment based on

limitations. On June 5, 2023, Kusman filed a motion to reconsider the trial court’s

order granting summary judgment to Taylor and NTPA. On June 23, 2023, the trial

court signed an order denying Biopro’s motion for summary judgment. That same

day, the trial court signed an order denying Kusman’s motion to reconsider the order

granting summary judgment to Taylor and NTPA and signed an order for severance.

Pursuant to that severance order, the trial court stated,

      It is, therefore, ordered that the claims against [Taylor and NTPA] be
      severed from this action, transferred to an independent cause, cause
      number 342-343204-23, and dismissed with prejudice, so that the [trial
      court’s May 5, 2023 order granting summary judgment to Taylor and
      NTPA] . . . may become a final, appealable judgment, and that the
      remaining claims and parties, namely the claims between [Kusman] and
      [Biopro] remain on the Court’s docket in Cause No. 342-337038-22.

      On July 7, 2023, Biopro filed a motion to reconsider the trial court’s order

denying it summary judgment. On August 4, 2023, the trial court signed an order

granting Biopro’s motion for reconsideration. Pursuant to that order, the trial court

granted Biopro’s motion for summary judgment and rendered a take-nothing

judgment in Biopro’s favor. On September 5, 2023, Kusman filed a notice of appeal

in which she sought to appeal “the trial court’s judgment, rendered August 4, 2023.”

On November 27, 2023, Kusman filed an amended notice of appeal in which she

sought to appeal “the trial court’s dispositive order and final judgment, rendered

                                            3
May 5, 2023[,] and August 4, 2023[,] respectively.” Thereafter, Taylor and NTPA

filed a motion to dismiss, asking that we dismiss Kusman’s appeal as it relates to them

because her notice of appeal was untimely as to the take-nothing summary judgment

rendered in their favor. More than ten days have passed since Taylor and NTPA filed

their motion to dismiss, and Kusman has not filed a response. See Tex. R. App.

P. 10.3.

                                   III. DISCUSSION

       The deadline to file a notice of appeal is typically thirty days after the judgment

was signed unless the appellant timely files one of several specifically enumerated

time-extending motions in the trial court, in which case the deadline to file a notice of

appeal is ninety days from the date the judgment was signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1.

The time for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional in this court, and without a

timely filed notice of appeal or a timely filed extension request, we must dismiss the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b), 26.1, 26.3; Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d 676,

677 (Tex. 1998); Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).

       Generally, interlocutory orders may be challenged in an appeal from the final

judgment. Bonsmara Nat. Beef Co., LLC v. Hart of Tex. Cattle Feeders, LLC, 603 S.W.3d

385, 390 (Tex. 2020). But “severance of an interlocutory [order] into a separate action

makes [the interlocutory order] final, unless the order of severance indicates further

proceedings are to be conducted in the severed action.” VicNRG LLC v. FCStone,

LLC, No. 14-15-00194-CV, 2015 WL 1933376, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th

                                            4
Dist.] Apr. 28, 2015, pet. denied) (per curiam) (mem. op.). The appellate timetable

runs from the signing date of the order that makes the interlocutory order a final and

appealable judgment, such as an order of severance. Farmer v. Ben E. Keith Co.,

907 S.W.2d 495, 496 (Tex. 1995); Martinez v. Humble Sand & Gravel, Inc., 875 S.W.2d

311, 313 (Tex. 1994); VicNRG LLC, 2015 WL 1933376, at *1.

      Here, the take-nothing summary judgment entered in favor of Taylor and

NTPA became final and appealable when the severance order was signed on June 23,

2023. See Farmer, 907 S.W.2d at 496; Martinez, 875 S.W.2d at 313; VicNRG LLC,

2015 WL 1933376, at *1. After the severance, no timely post-judgment motion was

filed as to the take-nothing summary judgment.        Kusman’s amended notice of

appeal—in which she indicated for the first time that she was attempting to appeal the

take-nothing summary judgment entered in favor of Taylor and NTPA—was filed on

November 27, 2023, more than 150 days after the severance order was signed. Thus,

because her notice of appeal was untimely, Kusman has failed to timely invoke our

jurisdiction over the appeal of the take-nothing summary judgment entered in favor of

Taylor and NTPA. See Pletta v. ORO All Com., LLC, No. 01-19-00966-CV, 2021 WL

5773882, at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 7, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.)

(holding that notice of appeal was untimely when it was filed more than thirty days

after severance order); VicNRG LLC, 2015 WL 1933376, at *1 (same).

                                          5
                                 IV. CONCLUSION

       We grant Taylor and NTPA’s motion to dismiss, and we dismiss the part of

this appeal challenging the summary judgment as to Taylor and NTPA for want of

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). This case shall hereafter be styled Monique

Kusman v. Biopro, Inc.

                                                    /s/ Dana Womack

                                                    Dana Womack
                                                    Justice

Delivered: January 4, 2024

                                          6