Sergio Sandoval v. S & L Painting, Inc. and Safe Staff, Inc. ( 2010 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-10-00352-CV
SERGIO SANDOVAL APPELLANT
V.
S & L PAINTING, INC. AND SAFE APPELLEES
STAFF, INC.
------------
FROM THE 342ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Sergio Sandoval attempts to appeal the trial court’s June 17,
2010 “Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” Appellant
filed a timely motion for new trial, but he did not file his notice of appeal until
October 6, 2010, and the notice of appeal is therefore untimely. See Tex. R. Civ.
P. 329b(a); Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1) (stating that when an appellant files a
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
motion for new trial, the notice of appeal is due ninety days after the judgment is
signed).
We sent appellant a letter expressing our concern that we lack jurisdiction
because the notice of appeal is untimely. The letter stated that unless appellant
filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, it could be dismissed
for want of jurisdiction. We have not received any such response. Because
appellant’s notice of appeal is untimely, we dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b), 26.1(a)(1), 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Crites v.
Collins, 284 S.W.3d 839, 840 (Tex. 2009) (indicating that the timely filing of a
notice of appeal is jurisdictional); Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160
S.W.3d 559, 564 (Tex. 2005) (same).
TERRIE LIVINGSTON
CHIEF JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; GARDNER and WALKER, JJ.
DELIVERED: December 2, 2010
2