Kaylee McMahon v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as Manager of the Gaylord Texan Resort & Convention Center

Opinion

In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-24-00234-CV

___________________________

KAYLEE MCMAHON, Appellant

V.

MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AS MANAGER OF THE GAYLORD TEXAN RESORT & CONVENTION CENTER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 67th District Court Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 067-341074-23

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Kaylee McMahon attempts to appeal from a January 19, 2024

judgment. On May 28, 2024, we sent the parties a letter, which stated the following:

The court has received a copy of the notice of appeal in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(e). The court is concerned it may not have jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. The trial court’s judgment was signed January 19, 2024. A motion to set aside default judgment was filed February 20, 2024.[1] Therefore, the notice of appeal was due April 18, 2024, but was not filed until May 21, 2024.

Unless the appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal files with the court, on or before Friday, June 7, 2024, a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, this appeal may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3.

We received no response.

The time for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional in this court, and absent a

timely filed notice of appeal or extension request, we must dismiss the appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 2, 25.1(b), 26.3; Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex.

1998); Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Because the notice of

appeal was untimely, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App.

P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered: July 11, 2024

The clerk’s office confirmed via the trial court’s online case detail that the 1

motion to set aside was denied.