Oscar Casanova, Gabriel Oscar Casanova, and Dulce Vanessa Casanova v. Jonathan Jardon

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00218-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

OSCAR CASANOVA, GABRIEL OSCAR CASANOVA, AND DULCE VANESSA CASANOVA, Appellants,

v.

JONATHAN JARDON, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 156TH DISTRICT COURT OF SAN PATRICIO COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina

This matter is before the court on its own motion. Appellants Oscar Casanova, Gabriel Oscar Casanova, and Dulce Vanessa Casanova filed a notice of appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of appellee, Jonathan Jardon, in a lawsuit regarding the ownership of real property located in San Patricio County, Texas. The appellants’ brief in

2

the above cause was due on September 3, 2024. On September 16, 2024, the Clerk of this Court notified the appellants that their brief had not been timely filed and that their appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date of this letter, appellants reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was not significantly injured by the appellants’ failure to timely file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b). To date, the appellants have not filed any response to the Court’s directive. The appellants have failed to either reasonably explain their failure to file a brief, file a motion for extension of time to file their brief, or file their brief.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and appellants’ failure to file their brief, is of the opinion that this appeal should be dismissed. See id. R. 38.8(a) (authorizing the court to “dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution” if appellant fails to timely file a brief “unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant’s failure to timely file a brief”), R. 42.3(b), (c) (authorizing the court to dismiss an appeal “for want of prosecution” or “because the appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of [the appellate rules], a court order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time”); Smith v. DC Civil Constr., LLC, 521 S.W.3d 75, 76 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, no pet.). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution and because the appellants failed to comply with the requirements of the appellate rules and

3

directives from the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).

JAIME TIJERINA

Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the 6th day of February, 2025.