Court Opinion

ID: 3087962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 03:20:12.743639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:56.943497
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-13-00442-CV

                           COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

YORK, WHITMAN AND ASSOCIATES, LLC
D/B/A YORK, WHITMAN AND ASSOCIATES,                                      Appellant,

                                         v.

XO PRODUCE, INC.,                                   Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

          On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
                   of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

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

      Appellant, York, Whitman and Associates, LLC d/b/a York, Whitman and

Associates, appealed a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 1 of Hidalgo

County, Texas. On August 14, 2013, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the

notice of appeal failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5(e) and
25.1(d)(2). See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(e), 25.1(d)(2).       The Clerk directed appellant to file

an amended notice of appeal with the district clerk's office within 30 days from the date of

that notice. To date, the defect has not been corrected.

       On September 10, 2013, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it was

delinquent in remitting a $175.00 filing fee. Appellant was notified that the appeal was

subject to dismissal if the filing fee was not paid within ten days from the date of receipt of

the notice. See id. 42.3(b),(c).

       The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s failure to pay

the filing fee, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. See id. 42.3(b),(c).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution.

                                                                         PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 17th
day of October, 2013.

                                              2