Rodolfo Rivera Munoz v. The City of Balcones Heights, The City of San Antonio, and The State of Texas, 04-13-00439-CV (Tex. App. – San Antonio, November 20, 2013).
This is kind of an odd case, but is mainly just for litigators. Munoz sued the three governmental for declaratory relief (but the court never really says for what) plus a fourth (Star Shuttle). All three filed governmental defendants filed pleas to the jurisdiction, which were granted. No dispositive motion for Star Shuttle was evident in the record.
After some detailed rendition of the court’s requests from the Plaintiff to clarify whether any dispositive order exists as to Star Shuttle, the court determined that Star Shuttle had not been dismissed. The governmental defendants were never severed. The orders granting the pleas were therefore interlocutory. While the Plaintiff can appeal the granting of the plea at this point, the interlocutory deadlines are what govern. Motions for new trial do not extent interlocutory deadlines. Plaintiff missed the accelerated deadlines depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction. The court analyzed a provision for extension of time if the party files a “reasonable explanation” as to why certain extensions are necessary (mainly for briefing purposes). The explanation can be of help to litigators. However, the court determined that the explanation of “I did not intend to file an interlocutory appeal” and the insults to the courts listed by the Plaintiff are not a “reasonable explanation.” The notice of appeal is untimely and therefore the court lacks jurisdiction.
If you would like to read this opinion click here.