Amazonia Restaurant Bar and Lounge, L. L. C. v. Cintas Corporation

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 19, 2012
• Docket: 13-12-00304-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-12-00304-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ___________________________________________________________

AMAZONIA RESTAURANT BAR AND LOUNGE, L.L.C., Appellant,

v.

CINTAS CORPORATION, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 444th District Court of Cameron County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Amazonia Restaurant Bar and Lounge, L.L.C., attempted to perfect an

appeal from a judgment entered by the 444th District Court of Cameron County, Texas, in

cause number 2010-DCL-3119-H. Judgment in this cause was signed on January 25,

2012. A motion for new trial was filed on February 21, 2012. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellant=s notice of appeal was due on April 24, 2012, but

was not filed until April 25, 2012.

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in

good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by rule 26.1, but within the

fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time.

See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18, 619 (1997) (construing the

predecessor to Rule 26). However, appellant must provide a reasonable explanation for

the late filing: it is not enough to simply file a notice of appeal. Id.; Woodard v. Higgins,

140 S.W.3d 462, 462 (Tex. App.BAmarillo 2004, no pet.); In re B.G., 104 S.W.3d 565, 567

(Tex. App.BWaco 2002, no pet.).

On May 2, 2012, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that

steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that,

if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court=s

letter, the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from

appellant providing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file,

appellant=s failure to timely perfect its appeal, and appellant=s failure to respond to this

Court=s notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of

jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF

JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a)(c).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 19th day of July, 2012.