rene-ortega-and-wife-mary-ortega-rolando-ortega-and-wife-aurora-ortega-and ( 2011 )

NUMBER 13-11-00051-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
RENE ORTEGA AND WIFE MARY ORTEGA,
ROLANDO ORTEGA AND WIFE AURORA ORTEGA
AND ALBERT ORTEGA, Appellants,
v.
RICARDO PEREZ, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST
TO JPO ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Vela
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellants, Rene Ortega and wife Mary Ortega, Rolando Ortega and wife Aurora
Ortega, and Albert Ortega, filed a notice of appeal in the above cause on Wednesday,
January 19, 2011. On January 24, 2010, the Clerk of this Court notified the appellants
that the notice of appeal failed to comply with the appellate rules and requested correction
of this defect within thirty days. Appellants failed to correct this defect.
On February 18, 2011, the Court received and reviewed the clerk’s record in this
cause. The notice of appeal, filed on January 18, 2010, indicates that appellants are
appealing an order granting summary judgment signed on November 19, 2010, and an
order denying a motion for new trial signed on December 17, 2010. The clerk’s record
does not include an order signed on November 19, 2010, and the order denying a new
trial is not an independently appealable order. Accordingly, on May 4, 2011, the Clerk of
this Court notified appellants regarding these defects so that steps could be taken to
correct the defects, if possible. The Clerk notified appellants that the appeal would be
dismissed if the defect was not corrected after the expiration of ten days from the date of
receipt of this letter. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3, 44.3. More than ten days have passed
following receipt of this letter, and the defect has not been corrected.
The Court, having considered the notice of appeal, the clerk’s record, and
appellants’ failure to respond to the Court’s directives, is of the opinion that the appeal
should be dismissed. See id. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed this the
3rd day of June, 2011.
2