# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 22, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00340

- CV

Hari Prasad KALAKONDA and Latha Kalakonda,

Appellant s

v.

ASPRI INVESTMENTS, LLC

,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015

- CI

- 01910 Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellants Hari Prasad Kalakonda and Latha Kaladonda seek to appeal the trial court’s April 13, 2015, order denying their motion to dissolve a temporary injunction. See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 51.014(a)( 4) (authorizing interlocutory appeal from order overruling motion to dissolve temporary injunction). The appeal is accelerated. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.1(a).

When an appeal is accelerated, the notice of appeal is due within twenty days after the appealab le order is signed. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1(b), 28.1(b). The filing of a request for findings of fact or a motion for new trial does not extend the time to perfect an accelerated appeal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.1(b) ; In re K.A.F.

, 160 S.W.3d 923

, 925

- 927 (Tex. 20 05)

. The court may grant an extension of time to file the notice of appeal if the notice and a motion for extension of time are filed within fifteen days of the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3, 28.1(b). A motion for extensio n of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen

- day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v.

Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 615 (1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, once the fifteen day period for granting a motion for extension of time under Rule 26.3 has passed, a party can no longer invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction. Id.

The Kalakonda s ’ notice of appeal from the April 13 order denying the motion to dissolve the temporary injunction was due May 4, 2015, or the notice and a motion for extension of time were due fifteen days later on May 19, 2015. This court construed the Kalakondas’ letter dated May 20, 2015, and filed May 21, 2015 , to be a bona fide attempt to invoke the jurisdiction of thiscourt

. However, the letter was filed after the fifteen day period for granting a motion for

extension of t ime under Rule 26.3 has passed.

A timely notice of appeal is required to invoke this court’s jurisdiction. See Sweed v. Nye , 323 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. 2010). It does not appear from the record that the Kalakondas timely appealed the trial court’s April 13, 2015 order.

We therefore order a response due by July 7, 2015 , showing cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellant s fail to satisfactorily respond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), (c).

All deadlines in this matter are suspended until further order of the court.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Jus tice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 22nd day of June, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court