Ronald Dwayne Whitfield v. Clear Lake Nissan and Santander Consumer USA

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 24, 2015
• Docket: 01-15-00645-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-15-00645-CV Style: Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield v. Clear Lake Nissan and Santander Consumer USA, Inc. Date motion filed*: September 14, 2015 Type of motion: Amended Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Jurisdiction and Motions to Strike and for Sanctions Parties filing motion: Pro Se Appellant Document to be filed: N/A

Is appeal accelerated? No.

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted  Denied  Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)  Other: _____________________________________ Although the pro se appellant listed several appellate and trial court cause numbers on his motion, it was handwritten over the typed answer and original counterclaim of a First Service Credit Union (“FSCU”), and apparently seeks the dismissal or striking of FCSU’s answer filed in the unrelated trial court cause number 2015-45473. According to the trial clerk’s website, while FSCU is listed as a defendant and cross-plaintiff in No. 2015-45473, there has been no notice of appeal filed in that case. Furthermore, FSCU is neither listed as an appellee nor cross-appellant in this appellate cause number 01-15-00645-CV. Accordingly, appellant’s amended motion to dismiss appeal for want of jurisdiction and motions to strike and for sanctions is dismissed as moot because FSCU is not a party to this appeal and has not filed a cross-appeal.

Judge's signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes 

Date: September 24, 2015

November 7, 2008 Revision