Court Opinion

ID: 6330135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-04-12 22:28:50.941932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:06.785044
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-22-00050-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

PEDRO PEREZ,                                                                 Appellant,

                                           v.

RUDY GARZA JR.,                                     Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

          On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
                   of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Silva
                Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

      This matter is before the Court on appellee’s motion to dismiss. Appellee requests

the dismissal, as the appellant has moved from appellee’s property. Appellant did not file

a response to the motion.

      Additionally, on February 7, 2022, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the

notice of appeal did not comply with TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5 and 25 and provided 30 days to
correct the defect. On March 2, 2022, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the

required docketing statement was past due. On March 10, 2022, the Clerk of the Court

notified appellant that the filing fee was past due and if the fee was not paid in 10 days,

the appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Finally, on March 14, 2022,

the Clerk of the Court notified appellant again of the defects in the notice of appeal and

further provided notice that if the defects were not cured within 10 days, the appeal would

be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Appellant has since failed to file an amended

notice of appeal or docketing statement and is delinquent in paying a filing fee.

Furthermore, appellant failed to respond to the clerk’s notices.

        The Court, having considered appellee’s motion and appellant’s failure to comply

with the notices from the Clerk of the Court, is of the opinion that the motion should be

granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 42.3(b),(c). Therefore, the motion to dismiss is

granted, and the appeal is hereby dismissed.

                                                               LETICIA HINOJOSA
                                                               Justice

Delivered and filed on the
7th day of April, 2022.

                                            2