Ivan Montalvo v. City of Hitchcock

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 31, 2023
Docket01-23-00430-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Ivan Montalvo v. City of Hitchcock (Ivan Montalvo v. City of Hitchcock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ivan Montalvo v. City of Hitchcock, (Tex. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

Opinion issued October 31, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00430-CV ——————————— IVAN MONTALVO, Appellant V. CITY OF HITCHCOCK, Appellee

On Appeal from the 122nd District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 21-CV-1200

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Ivan Montalvo, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s

February 21, 2023 final judgment dismissing the underlying cause for want of

prosecution. Appellant has failed to timely file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a)

(governing time to file brief). On June 9, 2023, the court reporter notified the Court that no reporter’s record

was taken in this case, and on June 26, 2023, the clerk’s record was filed.

Accordingly, appellant’s brief was due to be filed on or before July 26, 2023. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). Appellant did not file an appellant’s brief.

On August 15, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that this appeal

was subject to dismissal unless a brief, or a motion to extend time to file a brief, was

filed within ten days of the notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a) (governing failure of

appellant to file brief), 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of appeal for want of

prosecution), 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case for failure to comply

with notice from Clerk of Court). Despite the notice that this appeal was subject to

dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond.

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

P. 42.3(b), 43.2(f). All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Rivas-Molloy, and Guerra.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ivan Montalvo v. City of Hitchcock, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ivan-montalvo-v-city-of-hitchcock-texapp-2023.