121 FM 971 Management, LLC; 521 South Heatherwilde Boulevard Management, LLC; David Efroymson; Daniel Zemel; And Josh Gellis v. Park Place Property Holdings, LLC and Dillon Property Holdings, LLC

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 4, 2025
Docket03-25-00010-CV
StatusPublished

This text of 121 FM 971 Management, LLC; 521 South Heatherwilde Boulevard Management, LLC; David Efroymson; Daniel Zemel; And Josh Gellis v. Park Place Property Holdings, LLC and Dillon Property Holdings, LLC (121 FM 971 Management, LLC; 521 South Heatherwilde Boulevard Management, LLC; David Efroymson; Daniel Zemel; And Josh Gellis v. Park Place Property Holdings, LLC and Dillon Property Holdings, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
121 FM 971 Management, LLC; 521 South Heatherwilde Boulevard Management, LLC; David Efroymson; Daniel Zemel; And Josh Gellis v. Park Place Property Holdings, LLC and Dillon Property Holdings, LLC, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00010-CV

121 FM 971 Management, LLC; 521 South Heatherwilde Boulevard Management, LLC; David Efroymson; Daniel Zemel; and Josh Gellis, Appellants

v.

Park Place Property Holdings, LLC and Dillon Property Holdings, LLC, Appellees

FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-GN-23-002399, THE HONORABLE J. DAVID PHILLIPS, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The clerk’s record in this appeal was due for filing in this Court on

January 31, 2025. On February 24, 2025, we notified appellants that no clerk’s record had been

filed due to their failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the trial clerk’s fee for preparing the

clerk’s record. The notice requested that appellants make arrangements for the clerk’s record

and submit a status report regarding this appeal by March 6, 2025. Further, the notice advised

appellants that their failure to comply with this request could result in the dismissal of the appeal

for want of prosecution. To date, appellants have not filed a status report or otherwise responded

to this Court’s notice, and the clerk’s record has not been filed.

If a trial-court clerk fails to file the clerk’s record due to an appellant’s failure to

pay or make arrangements to pay for the clerk’s fee for preparing the record, the appellate court

may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed

without payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). In this case, appellants have not established that they are entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145. Because

appellants have failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the

clerk’s record, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

__________________________________________ Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Ellis

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: April 4, 2025

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 FM 971 Management, LLC; 521 South Heatherwilde Boulevard Management, LLC; David Efroymson; Daniel Zemel; And Josh Gellis v. Park Place Property Holdings, LLC and Dillon Property Holdings, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/121-fm-971-management-llc-521-south-heatherwilde-boulevard-management-texapp-2025.