Reynaldo Morales v. Travelers Indemnity Co. ( 2019 )

Opinion issued August 29, 2019
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-19-00051-CV
———————————
REYNALDO MORALES, Appellant
V.
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO., Appellee
On Appeal from the 165th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2016-02771
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Reynaldo Morales filed a “request for review” on January 8, 2019,
in the appellate court complaining of his inability to reply to defendant’s response
to Morales’s motion for new trial. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The clerk’s record indicates that a final judgment was signed on March 8,
2016. Motion for new trial was filed almost a year later, on February 21, 2017. The
notice of appeal was filed almost two years later, on January 8, 2019.
A notice of appeal is timely if filed within thirty days of the date the final
judgment is signed, or if a timely motion for new trial is filed, within ninety days of
the date the final judgment is signed. See /TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. A motion for new
trial is timely if filed within thirty days of the date the judgment is signed. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 329b(a).
The clerk’s record indicates that appellant’s motion for new trial was not
timely filed, and thus, his notice of appeal, filed on January 8, 2019, was also
untimely filed. An appellate court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if
the appellant files his notice of appeal within the fifteen-day period after the filing
deadline and files a motion for extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. But appellant
did not file his notice of appeal within the fifteen-day period after the notice of
appeal was due. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed almost three years after it
was due.
The deadline for filing the notice of appeal is jurisdictional and unless
appellant timely files a notice of appeal, we must dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b); 42.3(a). We previously notified appellant
2
of our intent to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction, and appellant filed
several responses, none of which demonstrated that this Court has jurisdiction.1
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss
any pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.
1
Even if appellant is not appealing the March 2016 judgment, but is attempting to
appeal his inability to timely reply to defendant’s response to appellant’s untimely
motion for new trial, we would still have no jurisdiction because our jurisdiction
is limited to appeals from final judgments or interlocutory orders that have been
made appealable by statute. See Scripps NP Operating, LLC v. Carter, 573 S.W.3d
781, 788 (Tex. 2019).Appellant’s inability to timely reply to a response to a motion
for new trial is not an appealable order or judgment.
Additionally, appellant was adjudicated a vexatious litigant by the trial court in this
case on March 28, 2016. See Office of Court Administration List of Vexatious
Litigants Subject to Pre-Filing Orders under Section 11.101, Civil Practice and
Remedies Code, available at http://www.txcourts.gov/media/1337456/Reynaldo-
Morales-No-2016-02771.pdf (last viewed on August 20, 2019); see also TEX. CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE § 11.104(b) (requiring office of court administration to
maintain and post list of vexatious litigants on agency’s website); Douglas v. Am.
Title Co., 196 S.W.3d 876, 878 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no
pet.) (taking judicial notice of Harris County record of vexatious litigants).
The Clerk of this Court may not file an appeal presented by a vexatious litigant
subject to a pre-filing order unless the litigant first obtains an order from the
local administrative judge permitting the filing of the appeal or the appeal is from
a pre-filing order designating the person a vexatious litigant. See TEX. CIV. PRAC.
& REM. CODE § 11.103(a). Appellant is not appealing from a pre-filing order
designating him a vexatious litigant. See id. § 11.103(d). The clerk’s record contains
no permission to appeal.
3