### NUM BER 13-07- 0015 9-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 X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG

BER NA RD INO VA RGA S, A pp ellan t,

v . SUS A NA

VA RGA S, A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e 3 57t h Dist rict C ou rt of C amero n Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd Ve la M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez Ber nar din o Var g as, pr o s e appel lan t, s u e d Sus ana Va rg as, appel lee , for div or ce. The tr ial co ur t di smi ss ed appe ll ant' s s uit for w ant o f pr osec uti on. By tw o i ss ues, appel lan t cont ends that the t ri al cour t er re d by (1 ) dis mis si ng his law sui t and (2 ) deny ing hi s mot ion to r ei ns ta te t he d i v or c e pr oc ee di ng s
. W e affi r m.2 I. Bac kg ro und The tr ia l court noti fied appe ll ant, thr oug h i ts "Dr op D ock et N oti ce W it h H ear ing Dat e," t hat a heari ng to deter mine w hether to dis mis s his case f or

w ant of pros ecut ion w as
se t f o r De ce m b e r 7 , 2 0 0 6 a t 8 :3 0 a .m
. B e ca u se a p p e lla n t d id n o t a p p e a r a t th e he a rin g, the trial cou rt d ismissed h is ca se. App ellant f iled a m otion to reinsta te, which the trial court deni ed. II. D is mis sal for W ant o f Pros ecut ion By his f irst issue , app ellant co nte nds th at th e trial court erred when it dismisse d his app e a l f or

w ant o f pros ecut ion

. Appel lan t ar g ues that he di d not appear at the h ear ing becau se the t ri al cour t' s c ler k fai led to g iv e hi m pr oper n o ti ce o f

t h e l ocal r ule s a nd proce dure s. A tr ial co ur t may

di smi ss a c ase for w ant o f pros ecu tion w hen a par ty se eki ng aff ir mati v e r eli ef f ail s t o appear for a tr ial or hear ing of w hic h the par ty had noti ce. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 65a( 1)

. W e rev iew a tr ial court 's order

dismi ss ing a case for w ant o f pros ecut ion for an abuse of dis cr eti on. MacGrego r v. R ich , 941 S.W .2d 7 4, 75 ( Tex . 199 7) ( per
cur iam) ; Garcia v. Barreiro , 115 S.W .3d 271 , 274 (Te x
. App .–Corp us Christi 2003 , no pe t.). A tr ial cou rt abus es it s d is cr eti on w hen i t ac ts "'w it hout re ferenc e to any g uid ing r ule s o r principles', o r stated ano the r w ay, w hen the trial court act s in a a rbitrary a nd u nrea sona ble
manner ." Ci ty of S an Ben it o v . R io Gr ande V alley Gas

C o. , 1 0 9 S

. W

. 3 d 7 5 0 , 7 5 7 (T e x. 2 0 0 3 ) (qu o ti n g Dow

ner v. Aqu am arine Ope rators, In c. , 701 S.W .2d 238 , 242 (Tex. 1985 )). App ellant co nced es on app eal tha t he received t he trial co urt's "Drop Docke t Notice W ith Hearing Date." He fu rther ackn owl edges th at he did not a tten d the hea ring. Beca use appel lan t f a iled to app ear for t he hear ing of w hic h he had not ic e, ap pel lan t' s c ase w as3

subj ect to dis mis sal for w ant of pr osec uti on unde r ru le 165a. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 16 5a(1 ). W e c o n c l u d e , t h e r e fo r e , t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e ti on. Se e C it y o f Sa n Beni to , 109 S.W .3d a t 757

. W e ov er ru le appel lan t' s fir st is sue. III

. Den ial of Mo ti on to R ein sta te By his secon d issue, app ellant co n t e nds th at th e trial court erred in de nying his moti on to r ein sta te. H ow ev er , app ell ant fai ls to make "a cl ear and conc is e ar g ument for the c ontent ion s made , w it h appr opr iat e c it ati ons to author it ies and to t he r ecor d." See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1( h)

. W it hout ci tati on to the re cor d or auth or it y, a p p e lla n t has pr esent ed
n o t h i n g fo r t h i s c o u r t t o r ev iew

. Se e Plum m er v. R eeves , 9 3 S

. W

. 3 d 9 3 0 , 9 3 1 (T e x. App.–A mari ll o 2003, pet. denied) (per curi am). An appell ant w aiv es an iss ue if he fail s t o suppo rt co ntent ion s b y

ci tati ons to appr opr iat e aut hor it y
. Abd elno ur v. Mid Nat'l Holding s, Inc. , 190 S.W .3d 237 , 241 (T ex. Ap p.– Housto n [1st Dist.] 200 6, no pet .). App ellant has, ther efore, w aiv ed his sec ond i ss ue. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38 .1(h). W e overrule appe llant's
sec ond i ss ue. IV. C oncl usi on W e affi r m.
NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 5 th da y

of June, 2008.