GRANT; VACATE; REINSTATE and Opin ion Filed November 23, 2020 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-00841-CV CAREINGTON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Appellant V. FIRST CALL TELEMEDI CINE, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 471st Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 471-02335-2019 MEMORANDUM OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING Before Chief Justice Burns, Jus tice Whitehill, and Justice Molb erg Opinion by Chief Justice Burns We dismissed this accelerated appeal, filed within the extensio n period provided by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3, as untimely after concluding appellant’s one-sente nce explanation for the delay in filing th e notice of appeal was not reasonable. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.5(b), 26.3(b). The explanation appellant provided in its extension motion was that it “waited to file it s Notice of Appeal to allow the trial court to cons ider and rule upon . . . its Motio n for Reconsideration.” Before the Court is appellant’s October 27, 2020 motion for reh earing. In the motion, appellant asserts the explanation provided in its exten sion motion was–2– “incomplete” and offers a more detailed explanation for the del ay in filing the appeal. Appellant explains the delay was not based on a delibe rate or intentional failure to comply with the appellate rules and deadlines but wa s the result of counsel’s mistake. According t o appellant, counsel researched the deadline to file the notice of appeal within one week of the appealed order bein g signed and determined appellant had twenty da ys from the date the order wa s signed to perfect an appeal or, with a “rudimentary” extension motion, thirty-fiv e days. Although a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal require s that a “reasonable explanation” be provided for th e delay in filing the appeal, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.5(b), 26.3, counsel did not “ research what constitutes a ‘re asonable explanation’” and assumed an extension “would be routinely and automatically granted.” Appellant’s extension motion was, therefore, “fairly cursory an d did not include a thorough or detailed explanation of the need for the extension. ” Appellant asserts it “always” intended to appeal and, although the denial of the mot ion for reconsideration “triggered” the filing, appellant believed the appeal could be filed without a problem within thirty-fi ve days of date the appealed order was signed. The Texas Supreme Court has defi ned a “reasonable explanation” for extension purposes as “[a]ny plausible statement of circumstanc es indicating that failure to file within the [specified] period was not deliberat e or intentional, but was the result of inadvertence, mistake, or mischance.” Hone v. Hanafin , 104 S.W.3d 884, 886 (Tex. 2003) (per curiam) (quoting Meshwert v. Meshwert , 549 S.W.2d 383,–3– 384 (Tex. 1977)). “Any conduct short of deliberate or intention al noncompliance qualifies as inadvertence, mistake, or mischance[.]” Garcia v. Kastner Farms, Inc. , 774 S.W.2d 668, 670 (Tex. 1989). Although intentionally waiting for a trial court to hear a moti on for new trial is not a reasonable explanation for delaying an appeal, see Daniel v. Daniel , 05-17- 00469-CV, 2017 WL 2645432, at *1 (Tex . App.—Dallas June 20, 201 7, no pet.) (mem. op.), we conclude that the more detailed explanation appe llant provides in the motion for rehearing demonstrates the delay here was not delibe rate or intentional. Accordingly, we GRANT the motion. We VACATE our October 12, 2020 opinion and judgment and REINSTATE the appeal. As the appellate record has been filed, we ORDER appellant to file its opening brief no later than December 14, 2020.

200841NF.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE