Bernard Ostroff, Kathleen Ostroff, Chad M. Ostroff, Tyler A. Ostroff and Collin Somerville-Ostroff v. Anthony J. Muffoletto, M.D., Individually, Methodist Orthopedic Sepcialists of Texas, Randall Alan Nemitz, M.D., Individually, Greater Houston Anesthesiology, Memorial Hermann Hospital System, Memorial Hermann Healthcare System, Memorial Hermann Southwes

Opinion

Opinion issued October 4, 2012

In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas

NO. 01-11-00394-CV

BERNARD OSTROFF, KATHLEEN OSTROFF, CHAD M. OSTROFF, TYLER A. OSTROFF AND COLLIN SOMERVILLE-OSTROFF, Appellants

V.

ANTHONY J. MUFFOLETTO, M.D., INDIVIDUALLY, METHODIST ORTHOPEDIC SPECIALISTS OF TEXAS, RANDALL ALAN NEMITZ, M.D., INDIVIDUALLY, GREATER HOUSTON ANESTHESIOLOGY, MEMORIAL HERMANN HOSPITAL SYSTEM, MEMORIAL HERMANN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, MEMORIAL HERMANN SOUTHWEST HOSPITAL, Appellees

On Appeal from the 164th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1046882

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellants, Bernard Ostroff, Kathleen Ostroff, Chad M. Ostroff, Tyler A.

Ostroff and Collin Somerville-Ostroff, have neither paid the required fees nor

established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (“A

party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must pay—at

the time an item is presented for filing—whatever fees are required by statute or

Supreme Court order.”), 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence); see

also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 51.207 (Vernon Supp. 2011), § 51.941(a) (Vernon

2005), § 101.041 (Vernon Supp. 2011) (requiring payment of fees in court of

appeals), Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and

the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,

Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in TEX. R. APP. P. app.

A § B(1) (listing required fees in court of appeals).

On July 16, 2012, the Court notified appellants that the appeal was subject to

dismissal for failure to pay the required fees. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (authorizing

enforcement of rule), 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of appeal for want of

prosecution). On August 9, 2012, appellees moved for dismissal for want of

prosecution because appellants had not paid the required fees. Appellants did not

respond to the Court’s notice or to appellees’ motion to dismiss.

2 We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We

dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp.