Court Opinion

ID: 3092309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 04:07:24.096168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:58.540930
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-12-00316-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

MARC ROSENTHAL AND ROSENTHAL
& WATSON, P. C.,                                                              Appellants,

                                             v.

JIM SOLIS D/B/A LAW OFFICE OF JIM SOLIS,            Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

             On Appeal from the 138th District Court
                  of Cameron County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION
       Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes
                     Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

       The appellants’ brief in the above cause was due on July 18, 2012. On August

14, 2012, the Clerk of the Court notified appellants that the brief had not been timely filed

and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date of receipt of this
letter, appellants reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was not significantly

injured by the appellants’ failure to timely file a brief. To date, no response has been

received from appellants.

       Appellants have failed to either reasonably explain their failure to file a brief, file a

motion for extension of time to file their brief, or file their brief. Accordingly, the appeal is

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b).

                                                    PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
4th day of October, 2012.

                                               2