Court Opinion

ID: 9377277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-07 15:07:02.581466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:13.087724
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                      NO. 03-21-00310-CV

                             Timothy Daniel Caballero, Appellant

                                                 v.

                               Caroline Ann Bonneville, Appellee

              FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
   NO. D-1-FM-19-002917, THE HONORABLE JESSICA MANGRUM, JUDGE PRESIDING

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Appellant Timothy Daniel Caballero filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial

court’s order transferring venue of this suit. From this Court’s review of the clerk’s record, the

order appeared to be interlocutory and not among the interlocutory orders from which

interlocutory appeals can be taken. See Tex. Fam. Code § 155.204(h); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. &

Rem. Code § 51.014; Chalu v. Shamala, 125 S.W.3d 737, 739 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

2003, no pet.). By letters dated November 3, 2021, and March 3, 2022, this Court’s clerk

requested a response from Caballero explaining the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction over this

appeal. This Court’s clerk warned that failure to file a response by stated deadlines could result

in dismissal. This Court’s clerk sent the letters to the address Caballero supplied in his notice of

appeal. Both letters were returned as undeliverable and unable to be forwarded.
               Parties are required to notify the clerk of their addresses. See Tex. R. App. P.

9.1(b) (“A party not represented by counsel must sign any document . . . and give the party’s

mailing address, telephone number, fax number, if any, and email address.”); see also Tex. Civ.

Prac. & Rem. Code § 30.015(d) (“If the party’s address changes during the course of a civil

action, the party or the party’s attorney must provide the clerk of the court with written notice of

the party’s new address.”)

               Though Caballero initially supplied a mailing address in his notice of appeal, he

failed to keep the Court apprised of his address. He did not respond to the inquiry on jurisdiction

and did not file any other document. Further, his brief was due twenty days after the clerk’s

record was filed on September 17, 2021. See Tex. R. App. 28.1 (appeals from interlocutory

orders accelerated), 38.6(a) (briefs in accelerated appeals due twenty days after later of clerk’s

record and reporter’s record filed). No brief or motion for extension has been filed.

               We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction, want of prosecution, and failure to

respond to a notice from the clerk requiring a response within a specified time. See Tex. R. App.

P. 42.3.

                                              __________________________________________
                                              Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Theofanis

Dismissed

Filed: March 7, 2023

                                                 2