WESTERN RIM PROPERTY SERVICES, Appellant v. REBECCA ROBERTSON, Appellee

DISMISS; Opinion Filed September 29, 2010.
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-10-00881-CV
............................
WESTERN RIM PROPERTY SERVICES, Appellant
V.
REBECCA ROBERTSON, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 10-01871-L
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Morris, Moseley, and Myers
 
        Western Rim Property Services appeals from the trial court's June 25, 2010 order denying its motion to compel arbitration. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.016 (Vernon Supp. 2009). Because the appeal is interlocutory, the notice of appeal was due by July 15, 2010. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b), 28.1(a). Western Rim filed its notice July 19, 2010, four days late but within the fifteen-day extension period provided by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3. See id. 26.3. Western Rim, however, did not file an extension motion pursuant to the rules of appellate procedure setting forth a reasonable explanation for the need for the extension. See id. 10.5(b), 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1997).
        By letter dated September 7, 2010, we directed Western Rim to file an extension motion that complied with the appellate rules no later than September 14, 2010. In the letter, we warned Western Rim that failure to file the extension motion by the date specified would result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. To date, Western Rim has neither filed the extension motion nor otherwise responded to the September 7th letter.
        The timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b). Because Western Rim's notice of appeal was untimely and Western Rim has failed to offer a reasonable explanation why the notice was late, we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
 
 
 
 
 
PER CURIAM
 
                                                          
 
 
100881F.P05