Court Opinion

ID: 3105412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 05:46:34.761109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:38.951273
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-10-00652-CV
 
                                 COURT
OF APPEALS
 
                     THIRTEENTH
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
                         CORPUS
CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________
 
BERNARDO LOZANO, ET
AL.,                                                   Appellants,
 
                                                             v.
 
TRANSIT MIX CONCRETE
& MATERIALS COMPANY,             Appellee. 
____________________________________________________________
 
                             On
Appeal from the 107th District Court 
                                       of
Cameron County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
 
                               MEMORANDUM
OPINION
 
         Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion
Per Curiam
 

This
cause is before the Court on appellee’s motions to dismiss the appeal.  Appellants,
Bernardo Lozano, et. al., filed a notice of appeal from a judgment entered by
the 107th District Court of Cameron County in cause number 2007-05-2660-A.   On
March 14, 2011, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants that the clerk's
record in the above cause was originally due on December 28, 2010, and that the
deputy district clerk, Monica Uribe, had notified this Court that appellants
failed to make arrangements for payment of the clerk's record.  The Clerk of
this Court notified appellants of this defect so that steps could be taken to
correct the defect, if it could be done.  See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c).   Appellants were advised
that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt
of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution.  
Appellants
have failed to respond to this Court=s notice.  The Court hereby GRANTS
appellee’s motions to dismiss.  Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT
OF PROSECUTION.  See Tex. R. App.
P. 42.3(b), (c). 
            
PER
CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
19th day of May, 2011.