Chi Van Nguyen D/B/A First Sign Production v. Annie Bui D/B/A Hylai Tailor

Court of Appeals of Texas

Chi Van Nguyen D/B/A First Sign Production v. Annie Bui D/B/A Hylai Tailor

DecidedApril 17, 2014

Docket01-14-00239-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Chi Van Nguyen D/B/A First Sign Production v. Annie Bui D/B/A Hylai Tailor (Chi Van Nguyen D/B/A First Sign Production v. Annie Bui D/B/A Hylai Tailor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chi Van Nguyen D/B/A First Sign Production v. Annie Bui D/B/A Hylai Tailor, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Chi Van Nguyen d/b/a First Sign Production v. Annie Bui d/b/a Hylai Tailor

Appellate case number: 01-14-00239-CV

Trial court case number: 1024207

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County

The trial court below signed a final judgment on February 3, 2014. The notice of appeal was therefore due by March 5, 2014 or, if appellant timely filed a motion to extend time to file his notice of appeal, by March 20, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 26.3. To extend the deadline, however, appellant was required to timely file a motion for extension by March 20, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Nevertheless, 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 15-day extension period provided by Rule 26.3. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617–18 (Tex. 1997). The appellant must, however, offer a reasonable explanation for failing to timely file the notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3; Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998). Appellant, Chi Van Nguyen d/b/a First Sign Production, filed his notice of appeal on March 19, 2014. Appellant further filed a “Motion to Extend Time Deadline to File Notice of Appeal” on March 21, 2014. Although appellant’s motion for extension of time was not timely filed within the 15-day extension period, the motion does provide a reasonable explanation for appellant’s failure to timely file the notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. 26.3; Jones, 976 S.W.2d at 677. Therefore, we imply a motion for extension, grant the implied motion, and dismiss appellant’s motion as moot. It is so ORDERED. Judge’s signature: /s/ Chief Justice Sherry Radack  Acting individually  Acting for the Court Date: April 17, 2014

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

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Chi Van Nguyen d/b/a First Sign Production v. Annie Bui d/b/a Hylai Tailor

Appellate case number: 01-14-00239-CV

Trial court case number: 1024207

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County

The trial court below signed a final judgment on February 3, 2014. The notice of appeal was therefore due by March 5, 2014 or, if appellant timely filed a motion to extend time to file his notice of appeal, by March 20, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 26.3. To extend the deadline, however, appellant was required to timely file a motion for extension by March 20, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Nevertheless, 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 15-day extension period provided by Rule 26.3. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617–18 (Tex. 1997). The appellant must, however, offer a reasonable explanation for failing to timely file the notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3; Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998). Appellant, Chi Van Nguyen d/b/a First Sign Production, filed his notice of appeal on March 19, 2014. Appellant further filed a “Motion to Extend Time Deadline to File Notice of Appeal” on March 21, 2014. Although appellant’s motion for extension of time was not timely filed within the 15-day extension period, the motion does provide a reasonable explanation for appellant’s failure to timely file the notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. 26.3; Jones, 976 S.W.2d at 677. Therefore, we imply a motion for extension, grant the implied motion, and dismiss appellant’s motion as moot. It is so ORDERED. Judge’s signature: /s/ Chief Justice Sherry Radack  Acting individually  Acting for the Court Date: April 17, 2014

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Chi Van Nguyen D/B/A First Sign Production v. Annie Bui D/B/A Hylai Tailor, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chi-van-nguyen-dba-first-sign-production-v-annie-b-texapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack