## NUMBER 13
- 19
- 00 14 0
- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

RODOLFO A. ESCAMILLA , Appellant,

v. SHELLY HOGAN ESCAMILLA , Appellee.

On appeal from the County Court at Law of Live Oak County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

A ppellant Rodolfo A. Escamilla appeals a protective order r endered against h im in favor of appellee Shelly Hogan Escamilla in trial court cause number CV01766 in the County Court at Law of Live Oak County, Texas

. We dismiss the appeal.2 I. B ACKGROUND On February 28 , 20 19 , the trial court signed the protective order that is at issue in

this case

. Appellant thereafter filed a notice of appeal. On June 19, 2019, the clerk’s record was filed, and on July 15, 2019, the reporter’s record was filed. Appellant subsequently filed an unopposed joint motion to abate the appeal and remand it to the trial court for further consideration. According to appellant’s unopposed joint motion, the parties to the appeal were engaged in settlement negotiations regarding a proposed

dissolution of th e protective order . Appellant assert ed that he planned to file a motion to dismiss the appeal upon resolution of the dispute. On December 12, 2019, this Court granted appellant’s motion and abated and remanded the appeal. On April 6, 2020, the Court ordere d appellant to file a status report regarding the

events on remand and advised him that the failure to respond might result in the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. In response, appellant filed a motion for extension

of time to effectuate the proposed settlement. We granted appellant’s motion for

extension of time

. On May 21, 2020, appellant filed a motion to reinstate the case on the docket and begin the briefing schedule. On May 28, 2020, appellant informed the C ourt that the parties had “ substantially ” agreed to the necessary terms for settlement of the underlying divorce, including an agreement regarding the protective order at issue here. Appellant again advised the Court that he would voluntarily dismiss the appeal when the trial cour t vacated the protective order. However, appellant again reiterated his request for a “briefing schedule.” On July 24, 2020, w e granted appellant’s motion , reinstated the appeal , and advised appellant that the “briefing time has commenced.”3 On September 8, 2020, the Clerk of the Court no tified appellant that his brief w as due on August 24, 2020 but had not been filed. The Clerk advised appellant tha t the appeal would be dismissed un less appellant reasonably explained the failure and the appel lee was not significant l y injured by the appellant’s failure to timely file a brief. Appellant did not respond to the Clerk’s directive.

II. A NALYSIS
This Court has the authority to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution or because the appellant has fai led to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules, a court order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3(b),(c); Smith v. DC Civil Constr., LLC , 521 S.W.3d 75, 76 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2017, no pet.). Here, t he appellant has failed to comply with the appellate rules or respond to the directives of the Clerk. Appellant has not filed his brief , filed a motion for extension of time, or otherwise respond ed to the Court regar ding his failure to file a

brief. A ppellant has failed to timely and diligently prosecute h is appeal

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3 (b), (c).

I II

. C ONCLUSION The Court, having examined and fully considered the record before the Court, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. Accordingly, w e dismiss this appeal

f or want of prosecution and because the appellant failed to comply with the requirements of the appellate rules and directives from the Clerk. See id.

NORA L. LONGORIA Justice

Delivered and filed the 10th day of December , 2020.