Court Opinion

ID: 9964130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-27 17:11:56.770661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:11.582739
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00573-CV

                                 COURT OF APPEALS

                      THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                        CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

MICHAEL L. FOGLIO,                                                                      Appellant,

                                                     v.

MARIA LUISA SANCHEZ
PORTILLA AND RENTAL
PROPERTY PROFESSIONALS,                            Appellees.
____________________________________________________________

        ON APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3
                  OF BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
____________________________________________________________

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION

    Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Peña
           Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras

       This cause is before the Court on its own motion. 1 On November 28, 2023,

appellant filed a notice of appeal. On December 13, 2023, the Clerk of the Court requested

       1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Fourth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket

equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
appellant to remit a $205.00 filing fee within ten days from the date of the notice. On

December 14, 2023, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant the amended notice of

appeal did not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5(e) and 25.1(d)(1).

See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(e), 25.1(d)(1). On January 24, 2024, the Clerk of the Court again

notified appellant of the delinquent filing fee and defects in his notice of appeal.

Furthermore, appellant was notified that if the defects on the notice of appeal were not

corrected within ten days or if the payment was not submitted within ten days, the appeal

would be dismissed. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c).

      Appellant has not paid the filing fee, has failed to cure the defects in the notice of

appeal, and has not otherwise responded to the notices from the Clerk of the Court

requiring a response or other action within the time specified; accordingly, the appeal is

dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. R. 42.3(c).

                                                               DORI CONTRERAS
                                                               Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the
25th day of April, 2024.

                                               2