Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 22, 2015

No. 04-15-00340-CV

Hari Prasad KALAKONDA and Latha Kalakonda,

Appellants

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 TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(4) (authorizing interlocutory appeal from order overruling 

motion to dissolve temporary injunction). The appeal is accelerated. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1(a).

When an appeal is accelerated, the notice of appeal is due within twenty days after the 

appealable order is signed. TEX. R. APP. 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. TEX.

R. APP. P. 28.1(b); In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 925-927 (Tex. 2005). 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. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3, 

28.1(b). A motion for extension 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 Kalakondas’ 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 this 
court. However, the letter was filed after the fifteen day period for granting a motion for 

extension of time 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 appellants 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, Justice

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