Robert K. Hudnall and Sharon E. Hudnall v. Smith and Ramirez Restoration LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 9, 2024
• Docket: 08-24-00087-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

ROBERT K. HUDNALL AND SHARON E. § No. 08-24-0087-CV HUDNALL, § Appeal from the Appellants, § 448th Judicial District Court v. § of El Paso County, Texas SMITH AND RAMIREZ RESTORATION, LLC, § (TC#2015DCV1113)

Appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it should be

dismissed for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

Appellants filed a notice of appeal on April 16, 2024. The clerk’s record was filed on

June 4, 2024, and Appellants’ second amended docketing statement indicated that no reporter’s

record was taken or requested for this cause. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6,

Appellants’ brief was due July 5, 2024, 30 days after the clerk’s record was filed. Tex. R. App. P.

38.6(a)(1). 1

1 Thirty days from June 4 was July 4, a legal holiday. Therefore, Appellants’ deadline was automatically extended to July 5, the next day that was “not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.” Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a). On July 16, 2024, the Clerk of this Court sent a notice to Appellants notifying them that

their brief was overdue, and their appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution if no

brief and motion for extension to file the same was received within 20 days. Tex. R. App. P.

38.8(a)(1) (allowing an appellate court to dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution if the

appellant fails to file a brief).

As of this date, Appellants have not filed a brief or a motion for an extension of time to file

their brief. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1);

42.3(b).

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

August 9, 2024

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.