Alma Maricela Cavazos Ramirez v. Hollywood Development and Construction, LLC

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 3, 2023
Docket13-23-00165-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Alma Maricela Cavazos Ramirez v. Hollywood Development and Construction, LLC (Alma Maricela Cavazos Ramirez v. Hollywood Development and Construction, 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
Alma Maricela Cavazos Ramirez v. Hollywood Development and Construction, LLC, (Tex. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

NUMBER 13-23-00165-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

ALMA MARICELA CAVAZOS RAMIREZ, Appellant,

v.

HOLLYWOOD DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7 of Hidalgo County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Tijerina, Silva, and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña

On April 24, 2023, appellant filed a notice of appeal. On May 1, 2023, the Clerk of

the Court notified appellant that her notice of appeal was not in compliance with the Texas

Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5(e) and (e)(2). See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(e), (e)(2). Appellant was asked to remit the $205.00 filing fee within ten days from the date of the

notice.

Furthermore, on June 13, 2023, the Clerk of the Court again notified appellant of

the defects and that she was delinquent in remitting a $205.00 filing fee. The Clerk of this

Court notified appellant the appeal was subject to dismissal if the notice of appeal was

not amended or if the filing fee was not paid within ten days from the date of the

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

Appellant has not cured the defective notice of appeal, paid the filing fee, nor

otherwise responded to the notices from the clerk requiring a response or other action

within the time specified; accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of

prosecution. See id.

L. ARON PEÑA JR. Justice

Delivered and filed on the 3rd day of August, 2023.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Alma Maricela Cavazos Ramirez v. Hollywood Development and Construction, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alma-maricela-cavazos-ramirez-v-hollywood-development-and-construction-texapp-2023.