Samir Daoudi v. Abdulrhman M. Klalib
This text of Samir Daoudi v. Abdulrhman M. Klalib (Samir Daoudi v. Abdulrhman M. Klalib) 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
DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 28, 2021
S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00145-CV
SAMIR DAOUDI, Appellant V. ABDULRHMAN M. KLALIB, Appellee
On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-17213
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Goldstein, and Smith Opinion by Justice Smith Before the Court is appellant’s motion for extension of time to file his notice
of appeal from the trial court’s summary judgment. The notice of appeal was filed
outside the ninety-day deadline set by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1(a),
applicable when, as here, a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed, but within
the fifteen-day extension period provided by appellate rule 26.3. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 26.1(a)(1), 26.3. Appellant explains in the motion that the notice of appeal was
not timely filed because he “was awaiting the decision of the trial court on his Motion
for Reconsideration and the expiration of the trial court’s plenary power over this case.” Appellee opposes the motion, asserting appellant’s explanation is not
reasonable. We agree with appellee.
The timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. Brashear v. Victoria
Gardens of McKinney, L.L.C., 302 S.W.3d 542, 545 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no
pet.) (op. on reh’g). To obtain an extension for filing a notice of appeal, the party
appealing must offer a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 10.5(b)(1)(C), 26.3(b). The Texas Supreme Court has defined a “reasonable
explanation” as “any plausible statement of circumstances indicating that failure to
file within the [specified] period was not deliberate or intentional, but was the result
of inadvertence, mistake, or mischance.” Hone v. Hanafin, 104 S.W.3d 884, 886
(Tex. 2003) (per curiam) (quoting Meshwert v. Meshwert, 549 S.W.2d 383, 384
(Tex. 1977)). “Any conduct short of deliberate or intentional noncompliance
qualifies as inadvertence, mistake, or mischance[.]” Garcia v. Kastner Farms, Inc.,
774 S.W.2d 668, 670 (Tex. 1989).
We have previously concluded that intentionally waiting for a trial court to
hear a motion for new trial is not a reasonable explanation. See Daniel v. Daniel,
05-17-00469-CV, 2017 WL 2645432, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 20, 2017, no
pet.) (mem. op.); Zhao v. Lone Star Engine Installation Ctr., Inc., No. 05-09-01055-
CV, 2009 WL 3177578, at *1, 2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 6, 2009, pet. denied) (per
curiam) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we deny the extension motion and dismiss the
–2– appeal and all other pending motions for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P.
42.3(a); Brashear, 302 S.W.3d at 545.
/Craig Smith/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE 210145F.P05
–3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
SAMIR DAOUDI, Appellant On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-21-00145-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-17213. Opinion delivered by Justice Smith, ABDULRHMAN M. KLALIB, Justices Molberg and Goldstein Appellee participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
We ORDER that appellee Abdulrhman M. Klalib recover his costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Samir Daoudi.
Judgment entered April 28, 2021.
–4–
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Samir Daoudi v. Abdulrhman M. Klalib, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samir-daoudi-v-abdulrhman-m-klalib-texapp-2021.