Court Opinion

ID: 9399454
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-03 17:11:03.111727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:18.005016
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-22-00552-CV

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                    CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

CLAUDIA PAHOLA ALMAZAN
AND ALL OCCUPANTS,                                                      Appellants,

                                             v.

ERICK GUERRERO TELLEZ,                                                     Appellee.

              On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6
                       of Hidalgo County, Texas.

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina
              Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

      This case involves an eviction dispute. On August 17, 2022, a justice of the peace

court in Hidalgo County entered a judgment against appellant Claudia Pahola Almazan

and awarded possession of certain real property to appellee Erick Guerrero Tellez.

Almazan filed a notice of appeal, but the appeal was later dismissed by Hidalgo County
Court at Law No. 6 for want of jurisdiction because Almazan failed to timely pay the

associated filing fee. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 143a (providing that an appeal from a justice of

the peace court “shall be deemed not perfected” if the appellant fails to pay the costs on

appeal within twenty days of receiving notice from the county clerk).

        On November 8, 2022, Almazan filed a notice of appeal in this Court challenging

the dismissal order. On May 3, 2023, we notified Almazan that her brief was twenty days

past due and that her appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution if she did

not take certain corrective actions within ten days of our notice. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.6(a) (establishing appellant’s briefing schedule); id. R. 38.8(a)(1) (“If an appellant [in a

civil case] fails to timely file a brief, the appellate court may . . . dismiss the appeal for

want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee

is not significantly injured by the appellant’s failure to timely file a brief . . . .”).

        To date, Almazan has not responded to our notice, filed a brief, or filed a motion

for leave to file an out-of-time brief. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of

prosecution.1 See id. R. 38.8(a)(1).

                                                                         GINA M. BENAVIDES
                                                                         Justice

Delivered and filed on the
1st day of June, 2023.

        1 Also before the Court is appellee’s combined “Motion to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction and for
Sanctions for Filing of Frivolous Appeal.” Appellee’s jurisdictional challenge is denied as moot. See
Bouboudakis v. Bouboudakis, No. 14-07-00256-CV, 2007 WL 1558743, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] May 31, 2007) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal for want of prosecution and denying jurisdictional
challenge as moot). After due consideration, we deny appellee’s motion for sanctions.
                                                    2