Sergio Aguilar v. Service Lloyd's Insurance Appeal from 162nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 No. 05-21-00548-CV On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-01402. Opinion delivered by Justice Goldstein. Justices Molberg and Smith participating. V. SERVICE LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. Judgment entered August 30, 2021 –3–
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
