Sergio Chavez and Maria D. Garcia v. Alejandro Moreno ( 2024 )


Menu:
  •                          NUMBER 13-23-00458-CV
    COURT OF APPEALS
    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
    SERGIO CHAVEZ AND
    MARIA D. GARCIA,                                                        Appellants,
    v.
    ALEJANDRO MORENO,                                                          Appellee.
    On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
    of Hidalgo County, Texas.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina
    Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras
    On October 25, 2023, appellants filed a notice of appeal. On October 26, 2023, the
    Clerk of the Court notified appellants that their notice of appeal was not in compliance
    with the Texas Rule of Appellant Procedure 9.1(c)(1). See TEX. R. APP. P.
    9.1(c)(1). Appellants were also asked to remit the $205.00 filing fee within ten days from
    the date of the notice.
    On November 15, 2023, the Clerk of the Court again notified appellants of the
    defects and that they were delinquent in remitting a $205.00 filing fee. The Clerk of this
    Court notified appellants the appeal was subject to dismissal if the filing fee was not paid
    within ten days from the date of the notice. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c).
    Furthermore, the clerk’s record was due on December 18, 2023. On January 2,
    2024, the Clerk of the Court notified appellants that the deputy district clerk, Sarah Reyes,
    informed the Court that appellants failed to make arrangements for payment of the
    clerk’s record. Appellants were notified that unless they made arrangements to pay for
    the clerk’s record and proof of payment was provided to the Court within ten days, the
    appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. See id. R. R. 37.3(b).
    Appellants have not cured the defective notice of appeal, paid the filing fee, and
    no clerk’s record has been filed due to appellants’ failure to pay or make payment
    arrangements. Additionally, appellants have failed to comply with a notice from the Clerk
    of the Court requiring a response or other action within the time specified; accordingly,
    the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. R. 42.3(b),(c).
    DORI CONTRERAS
    Chief Justice
    Delivered and filed on the
    1st day of February, 2024.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-23-00458-CV

Filed Date: 2/1/2024

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/3/2024