Betty Ortiz and David M. Wethy v. Marcus B. Leinart and Leinart Law Firm ( 2021 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-20-00381-CV
___________________________
BETTY ORTIZ AND DAVID M. WETHY, Appellants
V.
MARCUS B. LEINART AND LEINART LAW FIRM, Appellees
On Appeal from the 67th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 067-313108-19
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Womack and Wallach, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellants Betty Ortiz and David M. Wethy, appearing pro se, attempt to
appeal from the trial court’s “Order Granting Defendant’s Traditional Motion for
Summary Judgment and Final Judgment Dismissing Case with Prejudice,” signed
July 22, 2020. Appellants filed a motion for new trial on August 21, 2020, making
their notice of appeal due October 20, 2020. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1).
Appellants, however, did not file their notice of appeal until November 2, 2020.
On December 1, 2020, we sent a letter to Appellants stating our concern that
we lacked jurisdiction over this appeal because their notice of appeal was not timely
filed. We informed Appellants that unless they, or any party desiring to continue the
appeal, filed a response by December 11, 2020, showing a reasonable explanation for
the late filing of the notice of appeal, the appeal could be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. Appellants did not file a response.
The time for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional in this court, and absent a
timely-filed notice of appeal or extension request, we must dismiss the appeal. See
Tex. R. App. P. 2, 25.1(b), 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). Because Appellants’ notice
of appeal was untimely, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R.
App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
2
/s/ Dana Womack
Dana Womack
Justice
Delivered: January 7, 2021
3