Sergio Aguilar v. Service Lloyd's Insurance

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 30, 2021
• Docket: 05-21-00548-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 30, 2021

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00548-CV

SERGIO AGUILAR, Appellant V. SERVICE LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-01402

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Goldstein, and Smith Opinion by Justice Goldstein Appellant appeals from the trial court’s June 14, 2021 interlocutory order

declaring him to be a vexatious litigant. The notice of appeal was due on July 6,

2021.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b) (in accelerated appeal, notice of appeal due within

twenty days after order signed). Appellant filed his notice of appeal on July 7, 2021.

Because appellant filed the notice of appeal within fifteen days of the deadline, we

notified him that he could remedy the timeliness problem by filing, by August 5,

2021, a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal that complies with

1 Monday, July 5, 2021 was a Dallas County holiday. Accordingly, the deadline was extended to July 6, 2021. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1 (when last day for filing is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, period extends to next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday). rule 10.5(b)(1) and (2). See id. 10.5(b)(1), (2); 26.3. Without a timely filed notice

of appeal, we lack jurisdiction. See 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)

(timely filing of notice of appeal jurisdictional).

On August 4, appellant filed a document titled “First Unopposed Motion for

Extension of Time to File Petition for Review.” We construed the document as a

motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Because appellant failed to

state the facts relied on to reasonably explain the need for an extension, see TEX. R.

APP. P. 10.5(b)(1)(C), we denied the motion without prejudice to filing, by August

23, a motion that complies with the rule. On August 19, appellant filed a document

titled “On Plaintiff’s Motion to Declare” which we construe as a motion for

extension of time to file his notice of appeal. Appellant again fails to set forth the

facts relied on to reasonably explain the need for an extension. Accordingly, we

deny appellant’s extension motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

See id. 42.3(a).

/Bonnie Lee Goldstein/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE

210548F.P05

–2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

SERGIO AGUILAR, Appellant On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-21-00548-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-01402. Opinion delivered by Justice SERVICE LLOYDS INSURANCE Goldstein. Justices Molberg and COMPANY, Appellee Smith participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

Judgment entered August 30, 2021

–3–