Aero at Sp. Z.O.O. v. Dennis Gartman and Jerry K. Baker, 469 S.W.3d 314

Appellant Aero at Sp. z.o.o., a Polish company, had a final default judgment entered against it on July 1, 2014; service was effected under the Hague Convention and service was not contested.
Within 30 days (July 30, 2014), Aero filed a special appearance in the trial court asserting lack of personal jurisdiction and asking the court to dismiss the suit and award costs; no hearing was held on that filing.
Aero did not file a timely notice of appeal within the ordinary 30- or 90-day windows; its notice was mailed in October and a motion to extend was denied for lack of reasonable grounds.
The central procedural question was whether the July 30 special appearance, filed after entry of default judgment but within 30 days, constituted a timely postjudgment motion that extended the trial court’s plenary power and thus precluded a restricted appeal under Tex. R. App. P. 30.
The court concluded the special appearance effectively sought vacation of the default judgment and therefore qualified as a postjudgment motion filed within 30 days, extending the appellate timetable and barring a restricted appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a special appearance filed within 30 days after a default judgment counts as a postjudgment motion that precludes a restricted appeal	Aero argued the special appearance is a jurisdictional challenge, not a postjudgment motion, and thus it may pursue a restricted appeal	Gartman and Baker argued the special appearance implicitly sought vacatur of the judgment and thus was a timely postjudgment motion extending the appellate timetable	The court held the special appearance, filed within 30 days and requesting dismissal, was a postjudgment motion that extended the appellate timetable and precluded a restricted appeal

Gen. Elec. Co. v. Falcon Ridge Apts., J.V., 811 S.W.2d 942 (Tex. 1991) (describing restricted appeal as a direct attack on judgment)
Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith S. Equip. Inc., 10 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. 2000) (trial court retains plenary power 30 days; timely postjudgment motions extend appellate timetable)
Gomez v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 896 S.W.2d 176 (Tex. 1995) (postjudgment filings that assail judgment extend appellate timetable)
Lab. Corp. of Am. v. Mid-Town Surgical Ctr., Inc., 16 S.W.3d 527 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000) (timely motion to set aside default judgment precluded restricted appeal)
Moncrief v. Harvey, 805 S.W.2d 20 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991) (timely postjudgment motions preclude restricted appeal)
Clopton v. Pak, 66 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001) (restricted-appeal requirements are jurisdictional)