Court Opinion

ID: 2924697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 21:05:42.163451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:21.228910
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-08-00446-CV

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
______________________________________________________________

LETTY ROBINSON D/B/A
CELLULAR SOLUTIONS,                                                           Appellant,

                                            v.

CBL/SUNRISE MALL, L. P.,                             Appellee.
_____________________________________________________________

              On Appeal from the 103rd District Court
                    of Cameron County, Texas.
______________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

       Appellant, Letty Robinson d/b/a Cellular Solutions, perfected an appeal from a

judgment rendered against her in favor of appellee, CBL/Sunrise Mall, L.P.. On August 13,

2008, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the clerk's record in the above cause

was originally due on August 12, 2008, and that the deputy district clerk, Christina Tusa,
had notified this Court that appellant failed to make arrangements for payment of the

clerk's record. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant of 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).

Appellant was 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 13, 2008, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that she was

delinquent in remitting a $175.00 filing fee. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant that

the appeal was subject to dismissal if the filing fee was not paid within ten days from the

date of receipt of this letter. See id. 42.3(b),(c).

       Appellant has failed to failed to respond to this Court’s notices and has failed to pay

the filing fee. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

See TEX . R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b).

                                                   PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and
filed this the 6th day of November, 2008.

                                               2