Court Opinion

ID: 2925672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 21:25:12.354956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:38.559619
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-07-00474-CV

                           COURT OF APPEALS

                 THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                   CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
______________________________________________________________

KEMP DUBEA, SUN VALLEY ENTERPRISES, INC.,
BETTYE ESTILETTE, AND GENE ESTILETTE,                                   Appellants,

                                         v.

CURTIS CRANE ,                                       Appellee.
_____________________________________________________________

 On appeal from the 107th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.
______________________________________________________________

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Garza
                  Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

      Appellants, Kemp Dubea, Sun Valley Enterprises, Inc., Bettye Estilette, and Gene

Estilette, appealed a judgment rendered against them in the 107th District Court of

Cameron County, Texas. On September 13, 2007, the Clerk of this Court notified

appellants that the clerk's record in the above cause was originally due on August 17,
2007, and that the deputy district clerk, Laura Cisneros, had notified this Court that

appellants failed to make arrangements for payment of the clerk's record. The Clerk of this

Court notified appellants regarding this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the

defect, if it could be done. See TEX . R. APP. P. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Appellants were advised

that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice,

the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. On August 17, 2007, the Clerk had

similarly notified appellants regarding their failure to make payment arrangements for the

reporter’s record in this cause. Appellants failed to respond to the Court’s notices.

       The Court, having considered the documents on file, is of the opinion that the

appeal should be dismissed. See id. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c).          Accordingly, the appeal is

DISMISSED.

                                                  PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and
filed this the 17th day of April, 2008.

                                              2