Robert W. Lambertz v. Truck Insurance Exchange

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 12, 2006
• Docket: 14-05-00824-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 12, 2006

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 12, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-00824-CV

ROBERT W. LAMBERTZ, Appellant

V.

TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 280th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 05-16309

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal from an order signed May 23, 2005, denying appellant=s motion for sanctions, and an order signed June 9, 2005, denying appellant=s motion to recuse the trial judge.  The underlying case was dismissed by order signed April 27, 2003.  Appellant=s notice of appeal was filed on August 8, 2005.  On September 6, 2005, appellee filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

We do not reach the motion to dismiss because no clerk=s record has been filed.  The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record. 

On August 17, 2005, notification was transmitted to all parties of the Court's intent to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days, appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and provided this court with proof of payment.  See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

Appellant has filed a response to the motion to dismiss, asking that we consider the appendix to appellee=s motion as an agreed clerk=s record.  Rule 34.2 allows the parties to agree on the contents of the appellate record.  Tex. R. App. P. 34.2.  The record in this case contains no written stipulation by the parties agreeing that the appendix to the motion to dismiss shall serve as the clerk=s record.  Accordingly, there is no agreed record in this case.

Appellant=s response does not state that he has paid for the record nor does it give an adequate reason for delay in paying for the record.  Accordingly, we must dismiss for failure to adequately respond to our notice of non-payment of the clerk=s record.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed January 12, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Hudson, Frost, and Seymore.