Court Opinion

ID: 3101951
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 05:17:50.255032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:35.518074
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-11-00326-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

REYES URBINA,                                                                Appellant,

                                            v.

DESIGNER HOMES CO., INC., ONESIMO
MARTINEZ, XAVIER VILLESCAS [ERRONEOUSLY
SUED AS JAVIER BILOLESCAS OR BILLESCAS],
COMPASS BANK AND GREGORY S. KAZEN,
IN HIS CAPACITY ONLY AS SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE,        Appellees.
____________________________________________________________

             On Appeal from the 275th District Court
                   of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION
                  Before Justices Benavides, Vela, and Perkes
                       Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

       This matter is before the Court on a defective notice of appeal and appellant's

failure to correct the defect. On June 2, 2011, the Court advised appellant that the notice

of appeal was not in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(d)(2) and
9.5(e)(3). See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(d)(2), 9.5(e)(3). The Clerk directed appellant to file

an amended notice of appeal with the district clerk's office within 30 days from the date of

that notice.

       On July 19, 2011, the Clerk notified appellant that the defects had not been

corrected and warned appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the defects were

not cured within ten days.     Appellant has failed to correct the defects or otherwise

respond to the Court's notices.

       On its own motion, with ten days notice to the parties, an appellate court may

dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution or failure to comply with a notice from the

clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(b), (c). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and failure to

comply with a notice from the Court. See id.

                                                 PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
25th day of August, 2011.

                                             2