Court Opinion

ID: 9915669
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-06 07:09:30.618036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:56.739739
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed January 4, 2024

                                      In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                   __________

                                No. 11-23-00083-CV
                                    __________

 DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, L.P., Appellants
                                       V.
MCCLURE OIL COMPANY, INC. AND FINA 945 L.C., Appellees

                                       AND

          DRIVER PRODUCTION, L.P., ET AL., Appellants
                                       V.
   DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, L.P., ET AL.,
                    Appellees

                     On Appeal from the 118th District Court
                           Glasscock County, Texas
                          Trial Court Cause No. 1895
                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Appellant, Gale Kloesel, filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s final
judgment and its “Order on Motions for New Trial.” Appellant’s brief was originally
due to be filed in this court on or before June 26, 2023. We granted three of
Appellant’s counsel’s motions to extend the deadline to file the brief. In the most
recent motion, Appellant’s counsel requested leave to file a late brief “in the event
it becomes necessary” because “[Appellant] is in the process of settlement
negotiations and plans to settle this matter without the need and expense for the
drafting and filing of a brief.” We granted the motion and notified counsel that the
brief was due for filing on or before September 25, 2023.
      Appellant’s counsel did not file a brief. On September 29, October 20, and
October 24, the clerk of this court reminded Appellant’s counsel that the brief was
overdue. On October 24, Appellant’s counsel notified the clerk of this court by
telephone that “[s]he has settled with SH Permian and Pioneer Natural Resources
[and] [c]ounsel will file something with [the] court.”        On November 8 and
November 30, the clerk of this court again notified counsel by letter that the brief
was overdue. In the November 30 letter, Appellant’s counsel was directed to notify
the court in writing on or before December 6 regarding whether Appellant intends
to prosecute the appeal. Appellant’s counsel was further notified that if a response
is not filed on or before that date, the appeal may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 42.3
of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).
      As of this date, Appellant’s counsel has not filed a brief, nor has counsel
notified this court that Appellant intends to prosecute the appeal. Based upon the
failure to prosecute this appeal in a timely manner, we are of the opinion that
Appellant’s appeal should be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).

                                          2
        Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal in part. The portion of the appeal relating
to Gale Kloesel is dismissed. The appeal remains active with respect to the
remaining parties.

                                                           PER CURIAM

January 4, 2024
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Wright, S.C.J. 1

Williams, J., not participating.

        1
          Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland,
sitting by assignment.
                                                      3