Kristen L. Yerena v. Eddie Martinez Torres

Court of Appeals of Texas

Kristen L. Yerena v. Eddie Martinez Torres

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided December 31, 2024·No. 01-23-00715-CV·Published

Opinion

Opinion issued December 31, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

The record in this appeal was due on or before October 31, 2023. The clerk’s record was filed on October 23, 2023, but no reporter’s record was filed. The court reporter notified the Court that the reporter’s record had not been filed because appellant had not paid, or made arrangements to pay, the fee for the reporter’s record. Accordingly, on November 6, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that unless appellant submitted written evidence that a reporter’s record was requested, and that appellant paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for the reporter’s record, by December 6, 2023, appellant may be required to file her brief without a reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). Appellant did not respond to the Clerk’s notice.

On August 1, 2024, the Court notified appellant that it would consider and decide those issues or points that did not require a reporter’s record for a decision and directed appellant to file her brief within thirty days of the date of the order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a), (d). Appellant failed to timely file a brief.

On September 16, 2024, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the time for filing a brief had expired and the 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), (c); 43.2(f). All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Rivas-Molloy and Gunn.

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

Opinion issued December 31, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

The record in this appeal was due on or before October 31, 2023. The clerk’s record was filed on October 23, 2023, but no reporter’s record was filed. The court reporter notified the Court that the reporter’s record had not been filed because appellant had not paid, or made arrangements to pay, the fee for the reporter’s record. Accordingly, on November 6, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that unless appellant submitted written evidence that a reporter’s record was requested, and that appellant paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for the reporter’s record, by December 6, 2023, appellant may be required to file her brief without a reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). Appellant did not respond to the Clerk’s notice.

On August 1, 2024, the Court notified appellant that it would consider and decide those issues or points that did not require a reporter’s record for a decision and directed appellant to file her brief within thirty days of the date of the order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a), (d). Appellant failed to timely file a brief.

On September 16, 2024, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the time for filing a brief had expired and the 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), (c); 43.2(f). All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Rivas-Molloy and Gunn.

Kristen L. Yerena v. Eddie Martinez Torres, (Tex. Ct. App. 2024).

Pincite

Kristen L. Yerena v. Eddie Martinez Torres (Kristen L. Yerena v. Eddie Martinez Torres) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.