David E. Kaup v. Texas Workforce Commisson and Global Security Consulting, Global Security Associates

Court of Appeals of Texas

David E. Kaup v. Texas Workforce Commisson and Global Security Consulting, Global Security Associates

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided March 13, 2014·No. 01-14-00040-CV·Published

Opinion

Opinion issued March 13, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

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). Further, appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(a)(2), 37.3(b).

On February 3, 2014, we affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining the county clerk’s contest to appellant’s affidavit of indigence. Because appellant had not established indigence, the Court ordered appellant to pay one-half of the filing fee to this Court no later than February 13, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5. The Court ordered appellant to pay the other one-half of the filing fee to this Court no later than March 5, 2014. See id. Appellant was notified that failure to comply with this Court’s order would result in dismissal of the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Appellant did not comply with the order and has not paid the required fees.

On February 3, 2014, the Court also ordered appellant to file with this Court written evidence from the trial court clerk showing that appellant has paid or made arrangements to pay for the preparation of the clerk’s record by March 5, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(a)(2), 37.3(b). The Court notified appellant that failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in dismissal of the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c). Appellant did not comply with the Court’s order and

has not paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees and for want of prosecution. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp.

1 On February 11, 2014, the trial court clerk filed a second copy of the clerk’s record on indigence, which had previously been filed with this Court on January 27, 2014. This record does not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5 and, therefore, is not sufficient to comply with this Court’s February 3, 2014 order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(a) (detailing required contents of clerk’s record). Further, appellant has provided no written evidence from the trial court clerk showing that appellant has paid or made arrangements to pay for the preparation of the clerk’s record, as required.

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

Opinion issued March 13, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

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). Further, appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(a)(2), 37.3(b).

On February 3, 2014, we affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining the county clerk’s contest to appellant’s affidavit of indigence. Because appellant had not established indigence, the Court ordered appellant to pay one-half of the filing fee to this Court no later than February 13, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5. The Court ordered appellant to pay the other one-half of the filing fee to this Court no later than March 5, 2014. See id. Appellant was notified that failure to comply with this Court’s order would result in dismissal of the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Appellant did not comply with the order and has not paid the required fees.

On February 3, 2014, the Court also ordered appellant to file with this Court written evidence from the trial court clerk showing that appellant has paid or made arrangements to pay for the preparation of the clerk’s record by March 5, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(a)(2), 37.3(b). The Court notified appellant that failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in dismissal of the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c). Appellant did not comply with the Court’s order and

has not paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees and for want of prosecution. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp.

1 On February 11, 2014, the trial court clerk filed a second copy of the clerk’s record on indigence, which had previously been filed with this Court on January 27, 2014. This record does not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5 and, therefore, is not sufficient to comply with this Court’s February 3, 2014 order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(a) (detailing required contents of clerk’s record). Further, appellant has provided no written evidence from the trial court clerk showing that appellant has paid or made arrangements to pay for the preparation of the clerk’s record, as required.

David E. Kaup v. Texas Workforce Commisson and Global Security Consulting, Global Security Associates, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

David E. Kaup v. Texas Workforce Commisson and Global Security Consulting, Global Security Associates (David E. Kaup v. Texas Workforce Commisson and Global Security Consulting, Global Security Associates) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.