Jose B. De La Cerda v. Boyd Distribution Center and Olympia Clear Tech

Court of Appeals of Texas

Jose B. De La Cerda v. Boyd Distribution Center and Olympia Clear Tech

DecidedJanuary 18, 2006

Docket12-05-00403-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Jose B. De La Cerda v. Boyd Distribution Center and Olympia Clear Tech (Jose B. De La Cerda v. Boyd Distribution Center and Olympia Clear Tech) 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

Jose B. De La Cerda v. Boyd Distribution Center and Olympia Clear Tech, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MARY'S OPINION HEADING

NO. 12-05-00403-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JOSE B. DE LA CERDA, § APPEAL FROM THE 87TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

BOYD DISTRIBUTION CENTER

AND OLYMPIA LEAR TECH,

APPELLEES § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This pro se in forma pauperis appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). The judgment in the instant case was signed on December 6, 2005. On November 28, 2005, which was prior to the signing of the judgment, Appellant filed a notice of appeal that failed to contain the information required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(e), i.e., a certificate of service showing service on all parties to the trial court’s judgment.

On December 12, 2005, Appellant was notified pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.1 that the notice of appeal was defective for failure to comply with Rule 25.1(e). He was further notified that unless he filed an amended notice of appeal on or before January 11, 2006, the appeal would be referred to the court for dismissal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

On December 16, 2005, Appellant filed an amended notice of appeal. However, Appellant failed to correct the defect. Because Appellant has failed, after notice, to correct his defective notice of appeal, the appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c); Feist v. Berg, No. 12-04-0004-CV, 2004 WL

252785, at *1 (Tex. App.–Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied); Feist v. Hubert, 12-03-00442-CV, 2004 WL 252285, at *1 (Tex. App.–Tyler Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied).

Opinion delivered January 18, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(PUBLISH)

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

MARY'S OPINION HEADING

NO. 12-05-00403-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JOSE B. DE LA CERDA, § APPEAL FROM THE 87TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

BOYD DISTRIBUTION CENTER

AND OLYMPIA LEAR TECH,

APPELLEES § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This pro se in forma pauperis appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). The judgment in the instant case was signed on December 6, 2005. On November 28, 2005, which was prior to the signing of the judgment, Appellant filed a notice of appeal that failed to contain the information required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(e), i.e., a certificate of service showing service on all parties to the trial court’s judgment.

On December 12, 2005, Appellant was notified pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.1 that the notice of appeal was defective for failure to comply with Rule 25.1(e). He was further notified that unless he filed an amended notice of appeal on or before January 11, 2006, the appeal would be referred to the court for dismissal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

On December 16, 2005, Appellant filed an amended notice of appeal. However, Appellant failed to correct the defect. Because Appellant has failed, after notice, to correct his defective notice of appeal, the appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c); Feist v. Berg, No. 12-04-0004-CV, 2004 WL

252785, at *1 (Tex. App.–Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied); Feist v. Hubert, 12-03-00442-CV, 2004 WL 252285, at *1 (Tex. App.–Tyler Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied).

Opinion delivered January 18, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(PUBLISH)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jose B. De La Cerda v. Boyd Distribution Center and Olympia Clear Tech, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-b-de-la-cerda-v-boyd-distribution-center-and--texapp-2006.