Court Opinion

ID: 2922566
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 02:58:37.415147+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:17.699479
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-05-305-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
___________________________________________________________________

MARKUS STAUDER,                                                         Appellant,

v.

GABRIELE STAUDER-HILPOLD,                                            Appellee.
___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 214th District Court 
of Nueces County, Texas
___________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Castillo, and Garza
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

         Appellant, MARKUS STAUDER, attempted to perfect an appeal from an
interlocutory order entered by the 214th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in
cause number 03-7257-F.  The order in this cause was signed on February 28, 2005. 
Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b), appellant’s notice of appeal was due on March 20,
2005, but was not filed until May 4, 2005.  
         Notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to correct the
defect, if it could be done.  Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected
within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s letter, the appeal would be
dismissed.  Appellee has filed an emergency motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction and for sanctions and an emergency motion to refer enforcement of
interlocutory order to trial court.  Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal and
response to appellee’s request for sanctions and for referral to trial court.
         The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of
the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  Appellee’s
motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction is GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  Appellee’s motion for sanctions is
DENIED.  All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

                                                                                 PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed 
this the 19th day of May, 2005.