Carlos Saldivar v. City of Austin

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 14, 2024
• Docket: 07-24-00134-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-24-00134-CV

CARLOS SALDIVAR, APPELLANT

V.

CITY OF AUSTIN, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 126th District Court Travis County, Texas Trial Court No. D-1-GN-17-003972, Honorable Amy Clark Meachum, Presiding

August 14, 2024 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant, Carlos Saldivar, appeals from the trial court’s Order Granting

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution and Final Judgment.1 Appellant’s

brief was due June 13, 2024, but was not filed. By letter of July 8, 2024, we notified

Appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution, without further

notice, if a brief was not received by July 18. On July 18, 2024, Appellant filed a motion

1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the

Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. for an extension of time, but the motion failed to include a certificate of conference and

was not accompanied by the requisite filing fee. 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.),

10.1(a)(5) (requiring motions in civil cases to include a certificate of conference).

Accordingly, the motion was rejected by the Clerk of this Court and Appellant was directed

to file a corrected motion with the filing fee by July 22, 2024. To date, Appellant has

neither filed a brief nor a corrected motion for an extension and has had no further

communication with this Court.

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

38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).

Per Curiam