Enedino Ramirez v. Daniel Cano, Jr.
This text of Enedino Ramirez v. Daniel Cano, Jr. (Enedino Ramirez v. Daniel Cano, Jr.) 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.
Opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-19-00519-CV
Enedino Ramirez, Appellant
v.
Daniel Cano, Jr., Appellee
FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. C-1-CV-14-000136, THE HONORABLE ERIC SHEPPERD, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On March 7, 2019, the trial court signed an order that dismissed Enedino
Ramirez’s suit against Daniel Cano, Jr., for want of prosecution. Ramirez timely filed a motion
to reinstate, which the trial court denied on April 25, 2019. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(a)(3).
Under the Rules of Appellate Procedure, Ramirez’s motion to reinstate extended the deadline for
filing his notice of appeal to June 5, 2019, ninety days after the trial court signed the dismissal
order. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(3).
On July 25, 2019, Ramirez filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s
denial of his motion to reinstate. Because the notice of appeal was filed more than ninety days
after the trial court signed its dismissal order, Ramirez’s notice of appeal was untimely. See
Weik v. Second Baptist Church of Hous., 988 S.W.2d 437, 438 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
1999, pet. denied) (holding that deadline to perfect appeal runs from date of dismissal order, not
from date of trial court’s ruling on motion to reinstate). On September 30, 2019, the Clerk of this Court sent Ramirez a letter informing him that it appeared from the record that his appeal
was untimely and that his appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction if he did not
provide us within ten days proof of timely mailing of his notice of appeal. More than ten days
have elapsed, and we have received no response from Ramirez.
Because Ramirez did not timely file his notice of appeal, we do not have
jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b). We dismiss this appeal for
want of jurisdiction. See id. R. 42.3(a).
__________________________________________ Chari L. Kelly, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: November 22, 2019
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Enedino Ramirez v. Daniel Cano, Jr., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enedino-ramirez-v-daniel-cano-jr-texapp-2019.