Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-15-00030-CV
David PERALTA,
Appellant
v.
MASSACHUSSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 333462
Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 8, 2015
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
The trial court signed a final judgment on October 16, 2014. Appellant’s notice of appeal
was due to be filed on November 17, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). Appellant filed a notice
of appeal on November 18, 2014. A motion for extension of time in which to file the notice of
appeal was due on December 1, 2014, but was not filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3.
A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good
faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen-day grace
period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner,
04-15-00030-CV
959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26); Dimotsis v. State Farm
Lloyds, 966 S.W.2d 657, 657 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (stating same under current
Rule 26). However, the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice
of appeal in a timely manner. See id.; TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C). Accordingly, on March
13, 2015, this court ordered appellant to file, no later than March 23, 2015, a response presenting
a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. Our order
cautioned appellant that if he failed to respond within the time provided, the appeal would be
dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Appellant has not responded to our order.
Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
-2-