Darnell Joseph v. Altman Specialty Plants, LLC ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 19, 2024
    In The
    Fourteenth Court of Appeals
    NO. 14-24-00532-CV
    DARNELL JOSEPH, Appellant
    V.
    ALTMAN SPECIALTY PLANTS, LLC, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 151st District Court
    Harris County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 2021-74539
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Appellant filed a notice of appeal on July 22, 2024 indicating that appellant
    was attempting to appeal a June 24, 2024 order denying appellant’s motion for
    reconsideration. An order denying a motion for reconsideration or motion for new
    trial is not independently appealable. See Digges v. Knowledge Alliance, Inc., 
    176 S.W.3d 463
    , 464 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.). The final
    appealable judgment in this case is the trial court’s order granting summary
    judgment signed September 20, 2023. Appellant filed an untimely motion for
    reconsideration on October 23, 2023, which was denied June 24, 2024. Appellant’s
    notice of appeal was filed July 22, 2024.
    The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the judgment is
    signed when appellant has not filed a timely post-judgment motion. See Tex. R.
    App. P. 26.1. Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed timely. A motion to extend
    time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of
    appeal beyond the time allowed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, but
    within the 15-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion to extend
    time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 
    959 S.W.2d 615
    , 617–18 (1997) (construing the
    predecessor to Rule 26). Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed within the 15-
    day period provided by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3.
    On August 27, 2024, this court transmitted notification to all parties that the
    appeal was subject to dismissal without further notice for want of jurisdiction. See
    Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant’s response fails to demonstrate that this court
    has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
    PER CURIAM
    Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Hassan.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-24-00532-CV

Filed Date: 9/19/2024

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/29/2024