# NU M BER 13-05-465-CV 

# COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E XAS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 

# D OVA V N I K AMI N E TZ KY

A /K /A D O N K . A

V N I , Ap p ell an t, v. DA V IDA. N E WM AN , I N D IV ID U AL LY , E TAL ., Ap p ell ees.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ On ap pe al from th e 333rd D istrict Co urt of H arrisC ou nty, Texas .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 

# ME MOR AND UM OP IN ION Bef o r e C h i ef Just i ce V

al dez an dJust i ces Gar

za an dBen avi des Memo r an d u m Op i n i o nPer

C u ri am On M ay 2, 2008, thi s Cour

t struck appell ant’ s b ri ef in t he above cause and ordered the appel lan t to redraw hi s b ri ef w it hin fifteen days. See T EX 

## . R. A PP 

## . P. 38. 9. App ellant ’s brief was due, therefore, on M ay 17, 2008. Appel lan t has fail ed tofil e a re- draw n brief and the refore has (1) failed to prose cute his app eal, and ( 2) has fa iled to comply wit h t h isT h e re a re s e v e ra l m o ti o n s p e n d i n g b yth e p a rti e s . F i rs t, o n F e b ru a ry 7 , 2 0 0 8 , a p p e l l e e s , a l o n g w i th 1 Lo ri B l an k , w ho i s d es c ri be d as a n “i nteres t ed pe rso n,” (co l l ec t i vel y“app el l ee s ”) fi l ed a m oti on w i t h t hi s C ou rt to c a n c e l tw o lis p e n d e n s a lle g e d ly f ile d b y a p p e lla n t a s a r e s u lt o fth is lit ig a tio n . A p p e lle e s a r g u e t h a t t h e lis p e n d e n s a re v o i d , a n d b e c a u s e th e a p p e a l is n o w p e n d i n g in th i s C o u rt, w e m a yi s s u e a n o rd e r to th a t e ff e c t. See T EX . P ROP . C OD E A NN . § 12
. 008( a) ( Ver non 2003) ( st at i ng t hat“ t he co urthea r i ng t he act i on m aycance l t he l i s pen dens atanyt i m e du r i ng t he pr oceedi ng” )
. O urj ur i sdi ct i on i s gov er ned byT exas G ov er nm entC ode s e c ti o n 2 2 .2 2 0 , w h i c h g i v e s u s a p p e l l a te ju ris d i c ti o n o v e r c i v i l c a s e s . T EX . G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 22
. 220 ( Ver non 2 0 0 4 )
. T e x a s P ro p e rty C o d e s e c ti o n 1 2 .0 0 8 d o e s n o t g i v e u s o rig i n a l ju ris d i c ti o n to d e te rm i n e th e fa c ts necessaryt o f i nd t hatt he l i s pen dens at i ssue her e ar e v oi d. Such a det er m i nat i on m ustbe m ade byt he t r i al c o u rt i n th e fi rs t i n s ta n c e , s u b je c t t o o u rr e v i e w o n a p p e a l o r b ym a n d a m u s . I d. § 2 2.22 1 (V ern on 20 04 ). Accor di ngl y , t he m ot i on t o can cel t he l i s pende ns i s not pr oper l y befor e t hi s C ourt , and we di sm i ss t he m ot i on fo r l a c k o f s u b je c t-m a tte r ju ris d i c ti o n .

H av i ng sa i d t hat , we no t e t hatwhen a pl ai nt i fff i l es a l i s pendens, and l i t i gat i on i s t er m i nat ed i n fav or o f th e d e fe n d a n t, th e re i s n o fu rth e r n e e d fo r a l i s p e n d e n s . R
. I
. O
. Sys. , Inc. v. U nion Car bide Cor

p. , 780 S .W .2 d 4 8 9 , 4 9 3 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 1 9 8 9 , w ritd e n i e d ). If th e a p p e l l a n t i n th i s c a s e c h o o s e s n o t t o appea l t o ori s unsu ccessf ul i n ap peal t o t he T exas Supr em e C ourt , he shoul d, consi st entwi t h t hi s l aw, agr ee t o rel ea s e t he l i s pe nd en s . Sh ou l d he un rea s on ab l y fai l t o do s o, s uc h fa i l ure m ayt he n b e t he su bjec tof a s u i t t o re m o v e th e c l o u d o n ti tl e c a u s e d b yth e l i s p e n d e n s .

In re s p o n s e to a p p e l l e e s ’ m o ti o n to c a n c e l th e l i s p e n d e n s , a p p e l l a n t fi l e d a m o ti o n fo r s a n c ti o n s . W e d e n yth e m o ti o n . A l l o th e r p e n d i n g m o ti o n s a re d i s m i s s e d a s m o o t. 

## 2 Cou rt ’sorder
. See id. 38.8( a) (1 ), 42.3 (b ), (c ). Accordin g ly , we di smi ssthe appeal
. Id.;se e Clem ens v. Al

len , 47 S.W .3d 26, 2 8 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amaril lo 2000, no pet .)( dis mis si ng appeal for wanto f

p ro s e c u tion where app ellantfailed tocorrect deficiencies in brief af ter not ice by court of

app eals). 1 

## P E RC U R I A M
Me moran dum Opi nio n del ivered and filed thi s t he 29t h day

of Jul y , 200 8.