K & S MART, INC. AND KARIM HEMANI, Appellants v. PROTON PRC, LTD., Appellee

DISMISS; Opinion filed November 16, 2010
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-10-01065-CV
............................
K & S MART, INC. AND KARIM HEMANI, Appellants
V.
PROTON PRC, LTD., Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 06-04871
.............................................................
OPINION
 
Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices O'Neill and Myers
Opinion by Chief Justice Wright
 
 
        Before the Court is appellee's motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. The trial court conducted a bench trial in this case on June 25, 2009. Appellants appeared in person and through their counsel and fully participated in the trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court took the case under advisement. The trial judge signed the judgment on March 23, 2010. Counsel for appellee received a copy of the judgment in the mail. Counsel for appellants contends that he did not receive a copy of the judgment in the mail. On August 23, 2010, five months after the judgment was signed, appellants filed their notice of restricted appeal.
        Appellee contends this appeal should be dismissed because appellants do not meet the requirements for a restricted appeal and their notice of appeal was otherwise untimely. In their response to the motion to dismiss, appellants admit that they participated in the trial. They contend, however, that they will be denied due process if they are not allowed to appeal.
        The right to a restricted appeal is limited to parties who did not participate-either in person or through counsel-in the hearing that resulted in the judgment complained of and who did not timely file a post-judgment motion or notice of appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 30. The legislature has the power to limit the right of appeal. Sultan v. Mathew, 178 S.W.3d 747, 752 (Tex. 2005) (citing Seale v. McCallum, 116 Tex. 662, 287 S.W. 45, 47 (1926)).
        Appellants do not meet the requirements for a restricted appeal because they participated in the trial. Appellants did not file any post-judgment motions. See generally Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a & 329b. Therefore, their notice of appeal was due April 22, 2010. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Appellants notice of appeal filed on August 23, 2010 was untimely. Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b).
        Accordingly, we grant appellee's motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction and dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
 
 
                                                          
                                                          CAROLYN WRIGHT
                                                          CHIEF JUSTICE
 
101065F.P05