Charles E. Smith and Betty M. Smith, Individually, and as Trustees for the Smith Family Trust v. Aramark Corporation

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 8, 2012
• Docket: 13-11-00500-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-11-00500-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

CHARLES E. SMITH, AND BETTY M. SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS TRUSTEES FOR THE SMITH FAMILY TRUST Appellants,

v.

ARAMARK CORPORATION, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 445th District Court of Cameron County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides, Vela, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, Charles E. Smith, and Betty M. Smith, Individually, and as Trustees for

the Smith Family Trust perfected an appeal from a judgment rendered against them in

favor of appellee, Aramark Corporation. On January 4, 2012, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants that the clerk's record in the above cause was originally due on August

22, 2011, and that deputy district clerk, Mary Ann Espinoza, had notified this Court that

appellants failed to make full payment for the clerk's record. The Clerk of this Court

notified appellants of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it

could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Appellants were advised, unless

arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record and proof of payment was provided to this

Court within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be

dismissed for want of prosecution.

Appellants have failed to respond to this Court’s notice. Accordingly, the appeal

is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 8th day of March, 2012.