Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin
This text of Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin (Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-26-00027-CV ___________________________
WILLIAMS QUALITY RENTAL, LLC, Appellant
V.
CLARION PARTNERS, LLC D/B/A TEXAS CLARION PARTNERS, LLC; TEXAS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC; NORTHLAKE 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC; NORTHLAKE 35 LOGISTICS PARK, LLC; NORTHLAKE 35 MANAGER, LLC; LIT INDUSTRIAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; TCD NORTHLAKE MEMBER 1, LLC; DOUG JOHNSON; AND D. MATTHEW GOODWIN, Appellees
On Appeal from the 431st District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 25-3150-431
Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Williams Quality Rental, LLC attempts to appeal the trial court’s
interlocutory order granting the special appearance filed by Clarion Partners, LLC
d/b/a Texas Clarion Partners, LLC. The trial court signed the interlocutory order on
December 18, 2025, making Appellant’s notice of appeal due January 7, 2026. See Tex.
R. App. P. 26.1(b) (stating that a notice of appeal in an accelerated appeal must be
filed within 20 days after the judgment or order is signed), 28.1(a) (stating that appeals
from interlocutory orders are accelerated appeals); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(7) (permitting an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a
special appearance). Appellant filed its notice of appeal on January 9, 2026, two days
late.
On January 15, 2026, we notified Appellant of our concern that we lacked
jurisdiction over this appeal because its notice of appeal was untimely. We warned
Appellant that we would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless it or any
party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response by January 26, 2026, showing a
reasonable explanation for the notice of appeal’s late filing. See Tex. R. App. P.
10.5(b), 26.3(b), 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We have received no response.
The time for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional, and absent a timely filed
notice of appeal or motion to extend the applicable deadline, we must dismiss the
appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 25.1(b), 26.1, 26.3, 28.1(b); Jones v. City of Houston,
976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998); Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).
2 A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant acting in
good faith files a notice of appeal beyond Rule 26.1’s filing deadline but within Rule
26.3’s 15-day period to seek the deadline’s extension. See Jones, 976 S.W.2d at 677;
Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617; see also Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 26.3, 28.1(b). But even when
an extension motion is implied, an appellant must still provide a reasonable
explanation for the delay in filing the notice of appeal. See Jones, 976 S.W.2d at 677;
Linville v. Leuty Ave. Apartments, No. 02-18-00186-CV, 2018 WL 3763934, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth Aug. 9, 2018, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); see also Tex. R.
App. P. 10.5(b)(1)(C), (b)(2)(A), 26.3(b).
Here, Appellant filed its notice of appeal late but within the 15-day period in
which an extension is implied. Nevertheless, because Appellant did not provide any
explanation—much less a reasonable one—concerning why it needed an extension, its
notice of appeal was untimely. See Jones, 976 S.W.2d at 677; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at
617; Linville, 2018 WL 3763934, at *1. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Jones, 976 S.W.2d at 677; Verburgt,
959 S.W.2d at 917; Linville, 2018 WL 3763934, at *1.
/s/ Elizabeth Kerr Elizabeth Kerr Justice
Delivered: March 12, 2026
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-quality-rental-llc-v-clarion-partners-llc-dba-texas-clarion-txctapp2-2026.