Chris Truax v. Kustom Ridz ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                              NUMBER 13-15-00130-CV
    COURT OF APPEALS
    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
    ____________________________________________________________
    CHRIS TRUAX,                                                                 Appellant,
    v.
    KUSTOM RIDZ,                                        Appellee.
    ____________________________________________________________
    On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
    of Nueces County, Texas.
    ____________________________________________________________
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria
    Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
    Appellant, Chris Truax, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order entered by
    the County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas, in cause no. 2014CCV-61232-
    5. Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that the order from which
    this appeal was taken was not a final appealable order. The Clerk of this Court notified
    appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be
    done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not
    corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be
    dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
    The notice was sent to appellant's last known forwarding address; however, the
    notice was returned as not deliverable and unable to forward.         The Nueces County
    District Clerk has sent other correspondence to appellant at the same address, which has
    also been returned to sender.
    Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.1(b) requires unrepresented parties to sign
    any document filed and "give the party's mailing address, telephone number, and fax
    number, if any, and email address." See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.1(b). Appellant has neither
    provided this court with a forwarding address nor taken any other action to prosecute this
    appeal.
    The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's failure to
    correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for
    want of jurisdiction. See 
    id. Accordingly, the
    appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF
    JURISDICTION. See 
    id. R. 42.3(a),
    (c).
    PER CURIAM
    Delivered and filed the
    14th day of May, 2015.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-15-00130-CV

Filed Date: 5/14/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015