Opinion

Alejandro Hernandez v. Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc.

Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Filed
May 5, 2011
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 42.2%

The opinion

Opinion issued

May 5, 2011

In

The

Court of

Appeals

For

The

First District

of Texas

————————————

NO. 01-11-00100-CV

———————————

ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ , Appellant

V.

RIMKUS

CONSULTING GROUP, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the County

Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 961154

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant

Alejandro Hernandez appeals the trial court’s judgment. Because appellant did

not timely file his notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction.

The

trial court rendered a final judgment on October 19, 2010. Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial,

extending the appellate timetable for filing the notice of appeal from 30 days

to 90 days after the trial court signed the final judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1). Thus, the notice of appeal was due by January

17, 2011. Appellant did not file his

notice of appeal until January 31, 2011, after the filing deadline. Because appellant’s notice was untimely, but

within 15 days of the deadline, this court implies a motion to extend time to

file appellant’s notice of appeal. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). However, an appellant must still provide a

reasonable explanation for its late filing.

Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998).

Appellee filed a motion

to dismiss for want of jurisdiction because of appellant’s late-filed notice of

appeal. Appellee’s motion acknowledges

the implied motion for extension for time under Verburgt but also points out appellant’s failure to provide a

reasonable explanation for his late filing.

One week after the motion to dismiss was filed this court requested a

response from appellant. The response

was due 10 days later, on April 1, 2011.

Appellant has not responded and has still not provided a reasonable

explanation for the late-filed notice of appeal.

Accordingly, we grant

appellee’s motion and we dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices

Jennings, Higley, and Brown.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.