Full Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-26-00234-CV Texas Rowing Center, Inc., Appellant v. Helen Kalm, Appellee FROM THE 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-GN-25-002328, THE HONORABLE DON R. BURGESS, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION On July 24, 2025, the trial court signed an order denying appellant Texas Rowing Center, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration. On March 4, 2026, Texas Rowing Center filed a “NOTICE OF APPEAL VIA FILING OF A PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS,” describing its intention to “file an appeal . . . via a Petition for Writ of Mandamus” pursuant to Section 51.016 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.016 (titled “Appeal Arising Under Federal Arbitration Act”). That same day, Texas Rowing Center filed a petition for writ of mandamus in appellate cause number 03-26-00227-CV, requesting relief from the trial court’s order denying its motion to compel arbitration. On March 11, 2026, we denied Texas Rowing Center’s petition for writ of mandamus. See In re Texas Rowing Ctr., Inc., No. 03-26-00227-CV, 2026 WL 679463, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 11, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Meanwhile, the Clerk of this Court construed Texas Rowing Center’s March 6, 2026 notice of appeal via petition of writ of mandamus as a notice of appeal, resulting in the creation of appellate cause number 03-26-00234-CV. On August 17, 2026, we informed Texas Rowing Center that its notice of appeal was not timely filed and that its appeal in cause number 03-26-00234-CV was therefore subject to dismissal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a) (allowing appellate court to dismiss case for want of jurisdiction after giving ten days’ notice to parties). To date, Texas Rowing Center has not responded. An appeal of an interlocutory order denying a motion to compel arbitration is an accelerated appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.016 (permitting interlocutory appeal of order denying motion to compel arbitration); Tex. R. App. P. 28.1(a) (“Appeals from interlocutory orders (when allowed by statute), . . . are accelerated appeals.”); Pilot Travel Ctrs., LLC v. McCray, 416 S.W.3d 168, 175 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.). In an accelerated appeal, absent a motion to extend time, “the deadline for filing a notice of appeal is strictly set at twenty days after the judgment is signed, with no exceptions.” In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 927 (Tex. 2005). Here, Texas Rowing Center did not file its notice of appeal until 223 days after the trial court signed its order denying the motion to compel arbitration, far exceeding this twenty-day deadline. Without a timely-filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction. See id.; Tex. R. App. P. 25.1. Consequently, because no timely notice of appeal was filed in this case, we dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction. See id. R. 42.3(a). 2 __________________________________________ Maggie Ellis, Justice Before Justices Triana, Crump, and Ellis Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: August 31, 2026 3