Nancy Rodriguez v. Divisione Construction, LLC Centerpoint Energy, Inc. and Digco Utility Construction, L.P.
This text of Nancy Rodriguez v. Divisione Construction, LLC Centerpoint Energy, Inc. and Digco Utility Construction, L.P. (Nancy Rodriguez v. Divisione Construction, LLC Centerpoint Energy, Inc. and Digco Utility Construction, L.P.) 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
Opinion issued July 1, 2025
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00187-CV ——————————— NANCY RODRIGUEZ, Appellant V. DIGCO UTILITY CONSTRUCTION, L.P., Appellee
On Appeal from the 270th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2017-26555
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Nancy Rodriguez filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s
November 22, 2024 Final Judgment, and February 18, 2025 “Order Denying
[Appellant’s] Motion For New Trial.”
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Any party “seek[ing] to alter the trial court’s judgment” must timely file a
notice of appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(c). If a party fails to timely file a notice of
appeal, we have no jurisdiction to address the merits of that party’s appeal. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 25.1(b); In re K.L.L., 506 S.W.3d 558, 560 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (without timely notice of appeal, appellate court lacks
jurisdiction over appeal); Brashear v. Victoria Gardens of McKinney, L.L.C., 302
S.W.3d 542, 545–46 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (timely filing of notice of
appeal is jurisdictional prerequisite).
Generally, a notice of appeal is due within thirty days after the trial court signs
its judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. The deadline to file a notice of appeal is
extended to ninety days after the judgment is signed if, within thirty days after the
judgment is signed, a party timely files a motion for new trial, motion to modify the
judgment, motion to reinstate, or, under certain circumstances, a request for findings
of fact and conclusions of law. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a); see also TEX. R. CIV. P.
329b. The time to file a notice of appeal may also be extended if, within fifteen days
after the deadline to file the notice of appeal, a party files a notice of appeal in the
trial court and a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal that complies
with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b) in the appellate court. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3.
2 Here, the trial court signed its final judgment on November 22, 2024.
Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial, extending the notice-of-appeal
deadline. Accordingly, appellant’s notice of appeal was due within ninety days after
the trial court’s judgment was signed—on or before February 20, 2025—or by
March 7, 2025 with a fifteen-day extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 26.3.
However, appellant did not file her notice of appeal from the trial court’s Final
Judgment until March 13, 2025, making her notice of appeal untimely.
Appellant also attempts to appeal from the trial court’s ruling denying her
motion for new trial. However, “[n]o appeal from an order denying a motion for
new trial exists separately from an appeal of the underlying judgment.” Sogo Indus.,
LLC v. Tarquin Polymers & Colors, Inc., No. 01-20-00200-CV, 2021 WL 2654140,
at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 29, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (alteration
in original) (internal quotations omitted); Macklin v. Saia Motor Freight Lines, Inc.,
No. 06-12-00038-CV, 2012 WL 1155141, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Apr. 6,
2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction because an
“order denying a motion for reconsideration or motion for new trial is not a
judgment, and is not independently appealable”). Thus, without a timely notice of
appeal from the trial court’s final judgment, we lack jurisdiction to consider an
appeal from the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for new trial. See Sogo
Indus., 2021 WL 2654140, at *2.
3 Appellee, Digco Utility Construction, L.P. filed a letter advising the Court that
appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely, and as a result, the Court lacks jurisdiction
over her appeal.1 The Clerk of this Court requested a response from appellant to
appellee’s letter with respect to the timeliness of appellant’s notice of appeal and the
Court’s jurisdiction in this matter, to be filed within ten days of the date of the notice.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Appellant did not respond.
Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending
motions as moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Guiney, and Morgan.
1 We construe appellee’s letter as a motion to dismiss.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Nancy Rodriguez v. Divisione Construction, LLC Centerpoint Energy, Inc. and Digco Utility Construction, L.P., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nancy-rodriguez-v-divisione-construction-llc-centerpoint-energy-inc-and-texapp-2025.