James Shaffer v. Lyondell Chemical Co., LyondellBasell Acetyls, LLC, and Equistar Chemicals, L.P.

Summary

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals of Texas dismissed James Shaffer’s attempted appeal for lack of jurisdiction because his notice of appeal was filed after the applicable deadline and outside the fifteen-day grace period for seeking an extension. The court denied Shaffer’s motion to extend time, rejected his due-process argument based on allegedly late notice of the judgment, and granted appellees’ motion to dismiss.

Holdings

1. Because Shaffer filed a timely motion for new trial, his notice of appeal was due within ninety days after the judgment was signed, or by February 27, 2023. His March 15, 2023 notice of appeal was untimely.
2. The court could not extend the deadline because Shaffer failed to satisfy either prerequisite of Rule 26.3 within the fifteen-day grace period: filing the notice of appeal in the trial court and filing a compliant motion to extend in the appellate court.
3. The untimely notice of appeal deprived the court of jurisdiction, so the court could not consider the merits and was required to dismiss the appeal.
4. The court could not grant relief based on alleged lack of notice because Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a(4) provides the applicable remedy, and Shaffer neither demonstrated compliance with that rule nor submitted a signed order restarting the appellate deadlines.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction when the notice of appeal was filed after the ninety-day deadline under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and after the fifteen-day grace period under Rule 26.3.
2. Whether the court could extend the deadline based on alleged lack of notice of the judgment, confusion, or cases permitting late appeals in parental-termination proceedings.

Disposition

dismissed