Clarissa Roman Acosta v. City of Corinth

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)
• Decided: July 2, 2026
• Docket: 02-26-00329-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-26-00329-CV ___________________________

CLARISSA ROMAN ACOSTA, Appellant

V.

CITY OF CORINTH, Appellee

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. CV-2024-00382

Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Clarissa Roman Acosta attempts to appeal the trial court’s April 21,

2025 order of dismissal. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal.

Generally, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after a judgment is

signed. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. But the filing of certain postjudgment motions, including

a timely motion to reinstate, will extend the deadline to ninety days after the judgment

is signed. See Tex. R. App. 26.1(a). Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a(3) requires that

a motion to reinstate “be filed with the clerk within 30 days after the order of

dismissal is signed.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(3); see McConnell v. May, 800 S.W.2d 194,

194 (Tex. 1990).

Here, Acosta filed her reinstatement motion on May 23, 2025, beyond her

30-day deadline. “[T]he time limits in Rule 165a are mandatory and jurisdictional.”

Cummings v. Billman, 634 S.W.3d 163, 168 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2021, no pet.)

(quoting Walker v. Harrison, 597 S.W.2d 913, 915 (Tex. 1980) (orig. proceeding)).

Acosta’s notice of appeal was thus due by May 21, 2025. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1.

Because she did not file the notice until May 20, 2026, her appeal is untimely.

We called this issue to Acosta’s attention, and we gave her ten days to show

grounds for continuing her appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. Over a month has passed,

and Acosta has not responded.1

1 Appellee City of Corinth filed a response and urged dismissal based on Acosta’s untimely notice of appeal.

2 Because Acosta’s notice of appeal was untimely, we lack jurisdiction over this

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 25.1(b), 26.1; Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d 676,

677 (Tex. 1998); Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). We thus dismiss

it for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr Elizabeth Kerr Justice

Delivered: July 2, 2026