Court Opinion

ID: 9391186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-01 15:08:12.663556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.942973
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued April 27, 2023

                                         In The

                                 Court of Appeals
                                        For The

                            First District of Texas
                              ————————————
                                NO. 01-22-00864-CV
                              ———————————
    MARCO ANTONIO CHAGOYA AND JOSE MANUEL FIGUEROA,
                       Appellants
                                           V.
                            MARIO VILCHIS, Appellee

                     On Appeal from the 215th District Court
                              Harris County, Texas
                        Trial Court Case No. 2021-42426

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellants, Marco Antonio Chagoya and Jose Manuel Figueroa, have filed a

notice of appeal from the trial court’s October 21, 2022 judgment. Appellants have

failed to timely file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a) (governing time to file brief).
      On December 15, 2022, the court reporter notified the Court that no reporter’s

record was taken in this case, and on December 28, 2022, the clerk’s record was

filed. Accordingly, appellants’ brief was due to be filed on or before January 27,

2023. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). On January 27, 2023, appellants filed a motion

for extension of time to file their appellants’ brief, which the Court granted,

extending the deadline for appellants to file their brief to March 1, 2023. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 38.6(d). Appellants did not file an appellants’ brief.

      On March 9, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants that this appeal

was subject to dismissal unless a brief, or a motion to extend time to file a brief, was

filed within ten days of the notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a) (governing failure of

appellant to file brief), 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of appeal for want of

prosecution), 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case for failure to comply

with notice from Clerk of Court). Despite the notice that this appeal was subject to

dismissal, appellants did not adequately respond.

      Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3(b), 43.2(f). All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

                                   PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Rivas-Molloy, Farris.

                                           2