Court Opinion

ID: 9368627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-06 09:09:16.241604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:09.589224
License: Public Domain

In the
        Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
         at Fort Worth
     ___________________________
          No. 02-23-00010-CV
     ___________________________

       AGILIGHT, INC., Appellant

                    V.

     LISETTE MANNING, Appellee

  On Appeal from the 352nd District Court
          Tarrant County, Texas
      Trial Court No. 352-330881-21

 Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.
 Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant Agilight, Inc. attempts to appeal from the trial court’s final judgment

signed on December 8, 2022. Agilight’s notice of appeal was due January 9, 2023. See

Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. But Agilight did not file its notice of appeal until January 10,

2023, making it untimely.1 See id.

      On January 10, 2023, we notified the parties by letter of our concern that we

lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was untimely. See id.

We warned that we could dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless Agilight

or any party wanting to continue the appeal filed a response by January 20, 2023,

showing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal. See Tex.

R. App. P. 10.5(b), 26.3(b), 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We have received no response.

      The time for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional in this court, and without

a timely filed notice of appeal or a timely filed extension request, we must dismiss the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 25.1(b), 26.1, 26.3; Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d

676, 677 (Tex. 1998); Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). A motion

for extension of time is necessarily implied when, as here, an appellant acting in good

faith files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the 15-

day period in which the appellant would be entitled to move to extend the filing

deadline under Rule 26.3. See Jones, 976 S.W.2d at 677; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617; see

      1
        Although the phrase, “Dated: January 9, 2023,” appears on the notice of
appeal, it was not filed until January 10, 2023.

                                           2
also Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 26.3. But even when an extension motion is implied, the

appellant still must reasonably explain the need for the extension.         See Jones,

976 S.W.2d at 677; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617.

      Because Agilight’s notice of appeal was untimely and because Agilight did not

provide a reasonable explanation for needing an extension, we dismiss this appeal for

want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Green v. Green, No. 02-22-

00221-CV, 2022 WL 2978606, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 28, 2022, no pet.)

(mem. op.).

                                                    /s/ Dana Womack

                                                    Dana Womack
                                                    Justice

Delivered: February 2, 2023

                                          3