Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

LOEZA v. SPCA OF TEXAS, 06-17-00104-CV. (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas Number: intxco20171228791 Visitors: 3
Filed: Dec. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 28, 2017
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION Memorandum Opinion by Justice MOSELEY . Luis Loeza filed a notice of appeal in this matter on September 26, 2017. 1 The clerk's and reporter's records were due to be filed with this Court on or before October 23, 2017. On October 23, the district clerk filed a motion for extension of time in which to file the record on the basis that no payment and no arrangement for payment for preparation of the clerk's record had been made by Loeza. We granted the clerk's motion, re
More

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Luis Loeza filed a notice of appeal in this matter on September 26, 2017.1 The clerk's and reporter's records were due to be filed with this Court on or before October 23, 2017. On October 23, the district clerk filed a motion for extension of time in which to file the record on the basis that no payment and no arrangement for payment for preparation of the clerk's record had been made by Loeza. We granted the clerk's motion, resulting in a due date for the clerk's record of November 22, 2017. On or about October 25, the court reporter who recorded the proceedings in the trial court informed our clerk's office that no payment and no arrangement for payment for the preparation of the reporter's record had been made by Loeza.

Loeza is not indigent and is, therefore, responsible for payment of the fees related to preparation of the appellate record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1; 35.3(a)(2), (b)(3); 37.3(b), (c). By letter dated November 27, 2017, and pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 37.3 and 42.3, we notified Loeza of this defect and provided him an opportunity to cure it. Further, we warned Loeza that if we did not receive an adequate response to our defect letter within ten days of the date of the letter, this appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), (c), 42.3(b).

We have received no communication from Loeza responsive to our November 27 correspondence. Consequently, this appeal is ripe for dismissal. Pursuant to Rule 37.3, subsections (b) and (c), and Rule 42.3(b), we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), (c); 42.3(b).

FootNotes


1. Originally appealed to the Tenth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (Vernon 2005). We are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Tenth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer