Ricardo Fornesa v. Auto Club Indemnity Company; Paul R. Hill; Clayton C. Dilday
This text of Ricardo Fornesa v. Auto Club Indemnity Company; Paul R. Hill; Clayton C. Dilday (Ricardo Fornesa v. Auto Club Indemnity Company; Paul R. Hill; Clayton C. Dilday) 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 May 29, 2025
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00043-CV ——————————— RICARDO FORNESA, Appellant V. AUTO CLUB INDEMNITY COMPANY, PAUL R. HILL, AND CLAYTON C. DILDAY, Appellees
On Appeal from the 268th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 23-DCV-301423
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Ricardo Fornesa attempts to appeal from the trial court’s judgment
signed on June 10, 2024.
Generally, a notice of appeal is due within thirty days after the judgment is
signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. The deadline to file a notice of appeal is extended to 90 days after the date the judgment is signed if any 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). The time to file a notice of appeal may also be extended if, within
15 days after the deadline to file the notice of appeal, a party properly files a motion
for extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3.
The record reflects that the trial court signed the final judgment on June 10,
2024, and appellant filed a motion for new trial on July 5, 2024. See TEX. R. CIV. P.
329b(a). Although the clerk rejected the motion for new trial due to its inclusion of
sensitive information, appellant refiled the motion on July 12, 2024 and the filing is
deemed timely. See Hall v. Lewis, 639 S.W.3d 197, 207–08 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] 2021, no pet.) (holding e-filed petition timely filed when it was
transmitted on the last day of limitations but clerk rejected it); In re Barr, No. 05-
19-00511-CV, 2019 WL 2082468, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 13, 2019, orig.
proceeding) (holding e-filed motion for new trial timely filed when it was
“transmitted to [the] electronic filing service provider” before deadline even though
clerk rejected it for insufficient fees and noncompliance); TEX. R. CIV. P. 21(f).
2 Therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal was due by September 9, 2024.1 See TEX. R.
APP. P. 26.1(a).
Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until January 16, 2025—more than
four months after the due date. Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this Court
lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1.
On May 1, 2025, we notified appellant that his appeal was subject to dismissal
for want of jurisdiction unless he filed a response showing grounds for continuing
the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case after
notice). Appellant responded to our notice but did not show how this Court has
jurisdiction to consider this appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Caughey and Johnson.
1 Because 90 days from the trial court’s judgment falls on a Sunday (September 8, 2024), the notice-of-appeal deadline extends to the next day. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a). 3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ricardo Fornesa v. Auto Club Indemnity Company; Paul R. Hill; Clayton C. Dilday, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ricardo-fornesa-v-auto-club-indemnity-company-paul-r-hill-clayton-c-texapp-2025.