NUMBER 13-19-00140-CV

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

Appellant Rodolfo A. Escamilla appeals a protective order rendered against him 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. BACKGROUND

On February 28, 2019, 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 the protective order. Appellant asserted 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 ordered 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 Court 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 court 

vacated the protective order. However, appellant again reiterated his request for a 

“briefing schedule.” On July 24, 2020, we 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 notified appellant that his brief was

due on August 24, 2020 but had not been filed. The Clerk advised appellant that the 

appeal would be dismissed unless appellant reasonably explained the failure and the 

appellee was not significantly injured by the appellant’s failure to timely file a brief.

Appellant did not respond to the Clerk’s directive.

II. ANALYSIS

This Court has the authority to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution or because 

the appellant has failed 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 TEX.

R. APP. 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, the 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 responded to the Court regarding his failure to file a 

brief. Appellant has failed to timely and diligently prosecute his appeal. See TEX.R.APP.

P. 42.3(b),(c).

III. CONCLUSION

The Court, having examined and fully considered the record before the Court, is 

of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal 

for 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.