Lan Hong Le v. Moody Gardens, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 2, 2024
• Docket: 01-24-00104-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued July 2, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00104-CV ——————————— LAN HONG LE, Appellant V. MOODY GARDENS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 122nd District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 23-CV-0418

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Lan Hong Le appeals from a judgment signed on January 12, 2024.

Appellant has not paid for the clerk’s record or the required filing fee and has not

established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1

(indigence), 37.3(b) (allowing dismissal of appeal if no clerk’s record filed due to

appellant’s fault); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207, 51.208, 51.941(a), 101.041; Order Regarding Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the

Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, Misc.

Docket No. 15-9158.

The Court issued a notice on March 4, 2024 (past due fee) that the appeal

might be subject to dismissal unless the filing fee was paid. The Court’s notice

advised that, unless appellant paid the filing fee by April 3, 2024, the appeal might

be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (allowing enforcement of rule), 37.3(b)

(allowing dismissal of appeal if no clerk’s record filed due to appellant’s fault),

42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case). No response was received.

The Court also issued a notice on April 15, 2024 advising appellant that the

Court might dismiss the appeal for failure to pay or make financial arrangements for

the filing of the clerk’s record unless appellant submitted written evidence by May

15, 2024 showing that he had paid or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s

record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (allowing enforcement of rule), 37.3(b) (allowing

dismissal of appeal if no clerk’s record filed due to appellant’s fault), 42.3(c)

(allowing involuntary dismissal of case). No response was received.

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c),

43.2(f). We dismiss all pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman.