Jim Mabrey v. Sandstream, Inc.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 8, 2003
Docket02-02-00351-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Jim Mabrey v. Sandstream, Inc. (Jim Mabrey v. Sandstream, Inc.) 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
Jim Mabrey v. Sandstream, Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-02-351-CV

JIM MABREY, MARK PRUNEAU, APPELLANTS

IRVING NAPERT, ALLEN EASTY,

THOMAS WENDT, WILLIAM FARQUHAR,

SEAN BINDLEY, FRED SYLVESTER,

AND FIBER.TV

V.

SANDSTREAM, INC. APPELLEE

----------

FROM THE 236 TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION (footnote: 1) AND JUDGMENT

On January 23, 2003, we notified appellants Irving Napert, Allen Easty, Thomas Wendt, William Farquhar, Sean Bindley, Fred Sylvester, and Fiber.TV that their brief had not been filed as required by T EX. R. A PP. P. 38.6(a).  We stated we would dismiss their appeal for want of prosecution unless these appellants or any party desiring to continue their appeal filed with the court within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  We have not received any response.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of Irving Napert, Allen Easty, Thomas Wendt, William Farquhar, Sean Bindley, Fred Sylvester, and Fiber.TV for want of prosecution.   See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b).

Also on January 23, 2003, we received a second supplemental clerk's record containing a trial court order dismissing appellee Sandstream, Inc.'s claims against Mark Pruneau pursuant to these parties' settlement agreement.  Consequently, on March 27, 2003, we notified appellant Mark Pruneau that we would dismiss his appeal unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with the court within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing his appeal.  We have not received any response; therefore, we dismiss Mark Pruneau's appeal.

The appeal of Jim Mabrey remains pending.  Thus, the appeal shall hereafter be styled: Jim Mabrey v. Sandstream, Inc.

Mark Pruneau, Irving Napert, Allen Easty, Thomas Wendt, William Farquhar, Sean Bindley, Fred Sylvester, and Fiber.TV shall each pay their costs of appeal, for which let execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL D: CAYCE, C.J.; DAY and LIVINGSTON, JJ.

DELIVERED: May 8, 2003

FOOTNOTES

1:

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4 .

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jim Mabrey v. Sandstream, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jim-mabrey-v-sandstream-inc-texapp-2003.