Amir Bajmanlou v. Signad LTD

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided November 10, 2016·No. 14-15-00853-CV·Published

Opinion

Order filed November 10, 2016

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________

NO. 14-15-00853-CV ____________

AMIR BAJMANLOU, Appellant

V.

SIGNAD LTD, Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Civil Ct at Law No 2 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1047396

ORDER

This court issued its opinion and judgment in this case on October 4, 2016. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 49.1 provides for the filing of a motion for rehearing within fifteen days after a court of appeals’ judgment or order is rendered. Tex. R. App. Proc. 49.1. On appellant’s motion, this court granted an extension of time to file the motion for rehearing to November 4, 2016. Appellant filed a motion for rehearing on November 8, 2016, after the extended deadline. “A court of appeals may extend the time for filing a motion for rehearing or en banc reconsideration if a party files a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b) no later than 15 days after the last date for filing the motion.” Tex. R. App. P. 49.8. A party seeking an extension of time in the court of appeals is required to file a motion specifically stating the facts that reasonably explain the need for an extension. Rios v. Calhoon, 889 S.W.2d 257, 259 (Tex. 1994); see also Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b)(1)(C) (requiring motion to extend time to include facts relied on to reasonably explain the need for an extension). No further motion for extension of time was filed in this case, however.

The Texas Supreme Court has consistently treated minor procedural mistakes with leniency to preserve appellate rights. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616-17 (Tex. 1997) (implying extension of time when a party perfects an appeal in good faith within the 15-day period for filing an extension). Thus, a motion for extension of time can be implied when a motion for rehearing is filed within the 15- day period for filing a motion for extension of time if the appellant thereafter files a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b)(1) that contains a reasonable explanation to support the late filing. See Houser v. McElveen, 243 S.W.3d 646, 647 (Tex. 2008); see also Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Ctr. Assoc., Ltd., 974 S.W.2d 805, 807 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (implying extension but requiring reasonable explanation).

Accordingly, unless appellant files with the clerk of this court a motion that complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b)(1) and provides a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the party’s motion for rehearing within 10 days of the date of this order, the court will deny the motion for rehearing as untimely.

PER CURIAM

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Amir Bajmanlou v. Signad LTD, (Tex. Ct. App. 2016).

Amir Bajmanlou v. Signad LTD (Amir Bajmanlou v. Signad LTD) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Houser v. McElveen
243 S.W.3d 646 (Texas Supreme Court, 2008)
Rios v. Calhoon
889 S.W.2d 257 (Texas Supreme Court, 1994)
Verburgt v. Dorner
959 S.W.2d 615 (Texas Supreme Court, 1998)
Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center Associates, Ltd.
974 S.W.2d 805 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)