Dov K. Avni AKA Dov Avni Kaminetzky v. David A. Newman
Opinion
Opinion issued March 6, 2014
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-13-00863-CV ——————————— DOV K. AVNI A/K/A DOV AVNI KAMINETZKY, Appellant V. DAVID A. NEWMAN, Appellee
On Appeal from the 333rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2010-22875
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Dov K. Avni a/k/a Dov Avni Kaminetzky, has failed to timely
file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a) (governing time to file brief), 38.8(a)
(governing failure of appellant to file brief). Appellant’s brief was due on
December 9, 2013. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). On December 27, 2013, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief. See TEX. R. APP. P.
10.5(b), 38.6(d). On January 9, 2014, the Court denied appellant’s motion because
appellant provided no explanation for the need for an extension. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 10.5(b)(1)(C) (requiring moving party to state facts relied on to reasonably
explain need for extension). The Court also notified appellant that this appeal was
subject to dismissal, if appellant did not file his brief or a proper motion for
extension of time providing a reasonable explanation for the need for an extension
by January 20, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1, 10.5(b), 38.1, 38.6(d), 38.8(a)(1),
42.3(b).
On February 6, 2014, appellant filed another motion for extension of time to
file appellant’s brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 38.6(d). Appellant’s motion
fails to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b) and specifically
fails to include any explanation for the need for an extension, as required by the
Rules and our January 9, 2014 order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b). Appellant’s
motion for extension is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 38.6(d) (motion for
extension must comply with Rule 10.5(b)).
Because appellant has failed to file a brief or a proper motion for extension
of time, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to timely file a
brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
2 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Dov K. Avni AKA Dov Avni Kaminetzky v. David A. Newman (Dov K. Avni AKA Dov Avni Kaminetzky v. David A. Newman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.