Labib Helmy Fanous v. Allstate Insurance

Opinion

In the

Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-26-00113-CV

___________________________

LABIB HELMY FANOUS, Appellant V.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 89th District Court Wichita County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC89-CV2024-2109

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Labib Helmy Fanous attempts to appeal from the trial court’s “Order Granting Defendant’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment” signed on October 31, 2025 (the Order).1 Because Fanous timely filed a motion for new trial, his notice of appeal was due January 29, 2026—ninety days after the Order’s signing. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1). But Fanous did not file his notice of appeal until February 19, 2026, making it untimely. See id.

We notified the parties by letter of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was untimely. See id. We warned that we could dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless Fanous or any party wanting to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing it. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. Although we received a response from Fanous, it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal.2

1 Fanous’s notice of appeal ostensibly attempts to appeal from the trial court’s order denying his motion for new trial. However, an order denying a motion for new trial is not independently appealable. Soliz v. J & B Hicks, Inc., No. 01-23-00604-CV, 2024 WL 3707578, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 8, 2024, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). Indeed, “the time for filing a notice of appeal runs from the signing of the final judgment, not the subsequent denial of a motion for new trial.” Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 01-19-00610-CV, 2019 WL 4677365, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 26, 2019, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.).

2 In his response, Fanous states that he “was not able to submit [his] appeal earlier as [he] was scheduled for a [c]ourt [h]earing in person on January 21, 2026[,] and [he] did not want to alienate the [j]udge by filing an appeal.”

3

The time for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional in this court, and without a timely filed notice of appeal or a timely filed extension request, we must dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 25.1(b), 26.1, 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 Fanous’s notice of appeal was untimely, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Amick v. Campbell, No. 02-24-00540- CV, 2025 WL 285339, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 23, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Because Amick’s notice of appeal was untimely, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.”).

/s/ Dana Womack

Dana Womack

Justice

Delivered: March 19, 2026