In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-23-00010-CV ___________________________ AGILIGHT, INC., Appellant V. LISETTE MANNING, Appellee

On Appeal from the 352nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 352-330881-21

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Agilight, Inc. attempts to appeal from the trial court’s final judgment signed on December 8, 2022. Agilight’s notice of appeal was due January 9, 2023. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. But Agilight did not file its notice of appeal until January 10, 2023, making it untimely.1 See id. On January 10, 2023, we notified the parties by letter of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was untimely. See id. We warned that we could dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless Agilight or any party wanting to continue the appeal filed a response by January 20, 2023, showing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 26.3(b), 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We have received no response.

The time for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional in this court, and without a timely filed notice of appeal or a timely filed extension request, we must dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 25.1(b), 26.1, 26.3; Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998); Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when, as here, an appellant acting in good faith files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the 15- day period in which the appellant would be entitled to move to extend the filing deadline under Rule 26.3. See Jones, 976 S.W.2d at 677; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617; see Although the phrase, “Dated: January 9, 2023,” appears on the notice of appeal, it was not filed until January 10, 2023.

also Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 26.3. But even when an extension motion is implied, the appellant still must reasonably explain the need for the extension. See Jones, 976 S.W.2d at 677; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617.

Because Agilight’s notice of appeal was untimely and because Agilight did not provide a reasonable explanation for needing an extension, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Green v. Green, No. 02-22- 00221-CV, 2022 WL 2978606, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 28, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.).

/s/ Dana Womack Dana Womack Justice Delivered: February 2, 2023