Mahmoud Latif v. URE Houston, LLC, Dianne Moore and Dreama Vallone Appeal from 127th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 2, 2016. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-16-00188-CV MAHMOUD LATIF, Appellant V. URE HOUSTON, LLC, DIANNE MOORE AND DREAMA VALLONE, Appellees On Appeal from the 127th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013-52317A MEMORANDUM OPINION The trial court signed an order on August 19, 2015, in cause number 201352317 disposing of all claims by appellant, Mahmoud Latif, against appellees, URE Houston, LLC, Dianne Moore, and Dreama Vallone. On November 5, 2015, the trial court severed those claims into a new case, cause number 2013-52317A. The August 19, 2015 order was transferred into the new cause and became a final judgment as of November 5, 2015. This is an attempted appeal from that judgment. Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial on December 4, 2015. The notice of appeal must be filed within 90 days after the judgment is signed when appellant has filed a timely post-judgment motion. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). Therefore, the notice of appeal was due February 3, 2016. Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until March 3, 2016. A motion for extension of time a notice of appeal is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files the notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1, but within the 15-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617–18 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed within the 15-day period provided by Rule 26.3. Accordingly, appellees’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Jamison. 2

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.