Javier Castillo v. MI-Jack Products, Inc.; Ace Industries, Inc.; and James Scott Parchmont Appeal from 269th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 9, 2022. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-22-00233-CV JAVIER CASTILLO, Appellant V. MI-JACK PRODUCTS, INC.; ACE INDUSTRIES, INC.; AND JAMES SCOTT PARCHMONT, Appellees On Appeal from the 269th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019-84588 MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a judgment signed January 14, 2022. The notice of appeal was due February 14, 2022. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a).1 Appellant, however, 1 Although the notice of appeal could have been timely filed within six months after the judgment was signed if this were a restricted appeal, see Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(c), this cannot be a restricted appeal. The record reflects that appellant’s counsel participated in a January 13, 2022 hearing that resulted in the final judgment, and restricted appeals are limited to parties who “did not participate—either in person or through counsel—in the hearing that resulted in the judgment complained of.” Tex. R. App. P. 30. filed his notice of appeal on March 30, 2022, a date more than 15 days after the due date for the notice of appeal. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).2 On April 29, 2022, this court informed appellant by letter about the untimely notice of appeal and warned him his appeal was subject to dismissal if he failed to show meritorious grounds for continuing the appeal. Appellant filed no response to the letter. Accordingly, due to the lack of any basis for exercising jurisdiction over this appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Jewell. 2 Appellant dated his notice of appeal February 28, 2022, but the trial court clerk filestamped the notice of appeal on March 30, 2022 to reflect its filing on that date. There is no evidence that the notice of appeal was actually received by the trial court clerk within 10 days of the February 28th deadline, see Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b)(1), so this discrepancy cannot help demonstrate the notice of appeal might be timely. 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.
