Kaylee McMahon v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as Manager of the Gaylord Texan Resort & Convention Center ( 2024 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-24-00234-CV
___________________________
KAYLEE MCMAHON, Appellant
V.
MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AS
MANAGER OF THE GAYLORD TEXAN RESORT & CONVENTION CENTER,
Appellee
On Appeal from the 67th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 067-341074-23
Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Kaylee McMahon attempts to appeal from a January 19, 2024
judgment. On May 28, 2024, we sent the parties a letter, which stated the following:
The court has received a copy of the notice of appeal in this case. See
Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(e). The court is concerned it may not have
jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was not timely
filed. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. The trial court’s judgment was signed
January 19, 2024. A motion to set aside default judgment was filed
February 20, 2024.[1] Therefore, the notice of appeal was due April 18,
2024, but was not filed until May 21, 2024.
Unless the appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal
files with the court, on or before Friday, June 7, 2024, a response
showing grounds for continuing the appeal, this appeal may be dismissed
for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3.
We received no 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 the notice of
appeal was untimely, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App.
P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
Per Curiam
Delivered: July 11, 2024
The clerk’s office confirmed via the trial court’s online case detail that the
1
motion to set aside was denied.
2