You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Richard Kaminski v. TTS Logistics, Inc. a California Corporation

Citation: Not availableDocket: 14-19-00528-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; October 8, 2019; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this appellate case, the appellant challenges an order from the 234th District Court in Harris County, Texas, regarding a legal dispute with TTS Logistics, Inc. The central issue involves the timeliness of the appellant's notice of appeal following an order issued on March 20, 2019. The appellant submitted the notice on July 1, 2019, which was within 15 days after the required deadline of June 18, 2019, thereby invoking an implied motion for extension under Texas law as established in Verburgt v. Dorner. However, the appellant failed to file a formal motion for extension or provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, as required by precedent in Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs. Ltd. The appellate panel, comprising Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer, issued an order mandating the appellant to submit a proper motion to extend the filing time within 10 days or face dismissal of the appeal. This procedural directive underscores the necessity of adhering to formal requirements even when an implied extension is recognized.

Legal Issues Addressed

Consequences of Failing to File Motion for Extension

Application: The court mandates filing a proper motion for extension within a specified period, failing which the appeal will be dismissed.

Reasoning: The court orders Kaminski to file a proper motion to extend the time to file the notice of appeal within 10 days of this order, warning that failure to comply will result in dismissal of the appeal.

Implied Motion for Extension under Texas Law

Application: An implied motion for extension is recognized when a notice of appeal is filed within 15 days of the deadline.

Reasoning: Under Texas law, an implied motion for extension is recognized when the notice is filed within this timeframe (Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617).

Requirement for Formal Motion for Extension

Application: Despite the implied motion for extension, the appellant is required to submit a formal motion and provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

Reasoning: Despite this, Kaminski did not submit a formal motion for extension and is required to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay (Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs. Ltd., 974 S.W.2d 805, 808).