Sergio Sandoval v. S & L Painting, Inc. and Safe Staff, Inc.

Opinion

02-10-352-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00352-CV

Sergio Sandoval		APPELLANT
V.
S & L Painting, Inc. and Safe Staff, Inc.		APPELLEES

------------

FROM THE 342nd District Court OF Tarrant COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

----------

          Appellant Sergio Sandoval attempts to appeal the trial court’s June 17, 2010 “Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”  Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial, but he did not file his notice of appeal until October 6, 2010, and the notice of appeal is therefore untimely.  See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(a); Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1) (stating that when an appellant files a motion for new trial, the notice of appeal is due ninety days after the judgment is signed).

          We sent appellant a letter expressing our concern that we lack jurisdiction because the notice of appeal is untimely.  The letter stated that unless appellant filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, it could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  We have not received any such response.  Because appellant’s notice of appeal is untimely, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b), 26.1(a)(1), 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Crites v. Collins, 284 S.W.3d 839, 840 (Tex. 2009) (indicating that the timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional); Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 564 (Tex. 2005) (same).

TERRIE LIVINGSTON

CHIEF JUSTICE

PANEL:  LIVINGSTON, C.J.; GARDNER and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED:  December 2, 2010

---

[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.