Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 29 , 2018.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 18 -00799- CV

MNJ GROUP, INC., Appellant

V. OMAR'S FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; OMAR'S FINANCIAL CONSULTANT'S, INC.; AND OMAR OMAR, Appellees

On Appeal from the 215th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016-84872A

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal from a judgment signed April 17, 2018

. Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial on May 17, 2018. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed September 7, 2018. Appellant MNJ Group, Inc. filed suit on December 9, 2016, against Car Stereo of Texas, Inc., Texas Electronics & Car Sales, Inc., Nabeel Arafat, Adam Arafat,2

Kelly Arafat, Omar’s Financial Services, Inc., Omar’s Financial Consultants, Inc., and Omar Omar. On April 21, 2017, appellees Omar’s Financial Services, Inc., Omar’s Financial Consultants, and Omar Omar moved for summary judgment. On April 17, 2018, the trial court signed a “Final Judgment for Defendants, Omar’s Financial Services, Inc., Omar’s Financial Consultants, Inc., and Omar Omar.” On the same day the trial court signed a severance order in which it severed MNJ Group, Inc.’s claims against Omar’s Financial Services, Inc., Omar’s Financial Consultants, Inc., and Omar Omar into a new case with the cause number 2016-84872A (the “severed case”). On July 10, 2018, the trial court signed an order granting nonsuit of the remaining defendants in cause number 2016-84872 (the “main case”). On September 7, 2018, appellant filed notices of appeal in both the severed case and the main case

. This court docketed the severed case as appellant cause number 14- 18 -00799-CV, and the main case as appellate cause number 14- 18

- 00805-CV. Appellant’s notice of appeal in cause number 14- 18 -00799-CV was due July16, 2018 and was not filed timely. When an appellant has filed a timely postjudgment motion, the notice of appeal must be filed within 90 days after the date the judgment is signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a).
On October 12, 2018 , this court notified all parties of the court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). In response, appellant filed a motion to consolidate the appeals and a motion to extend the time to file the notice of appeal in this appeal. Appellees then filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. 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 Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, but within the 15 -day grace period provided by Texas3

Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617–18 (1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed within the 15-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3. Therefore, appellant’s motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal in cause number 14- 18 -00799-CV is denied as untimely. In its motion to consolidate appeals, appellant asks this court to consolidate this appeal with the appeal of the main case in cause number 14- 18 -00805-CV. Appellant argues that the cases are related because both appeals address the same award of attorney’s fees sanctions. Because we lack jurisdiction over cause number
14

- 18 -00799-CV, we lack jurisdiction over appellant’s motion to consolidate appeals. See Madeksho v. Abraham, Watkins, Nichols & Friend , 112 S.W.3d 679, 695 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (court cannot act if it lacks jurisdiction). We therefore dismiss the motion to consolidate for lack of jurisdiction. Appellees’ motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Donovan.