Transporte Especializados Ruiz SA De CV v. Guillermo Cano

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 4, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00477-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00477-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

TRANSPORTE ESPECIALIZADOS RUIZ SA DE CV, Appellant,

v.

GUILLERMO CANO, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 370TH DISTRICT COURT OF HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Silva, Peña, and West Memorandum Opinion by Justice West

On September 29, 2025, appellant filed a notice of appeal. On October 3, 2025,

the Clerk of the Court attempted to notify appellant the notice of appeal did not comply

with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.1, 9.5, 25.1(d)(1)–(5), and 25.1(e). See TEX.

R. APP. P. 9.1, 9.5, 25.1(d)(1)–(5), 25.1(e). Appellant was further notified that it appeared they were appearing without counsel and that only an attorney may represent a party

other than oneself. See Kunstoplast of Am. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA, 937 S.W.2d

455, 456 (Tex. 1996). Appellant was provided thirty days to cure the defects in the notice

of appeal and was instructed to obtain counsel and have counsel file an appearance in

the matter on or before October 14, 2025. Appellant has failed to cure the defects, failed

to respond, and otherwise have failed to avail themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3 permits an appellate court, on its own

initiative after giving ten days’ notice to all parties, to dismiss the appeal for want of

prosecution or for failure to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). We are of the opinion that appellant has both failed to cure the defect

and failed to obtain counsel as instructed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want

of prosecution. See id.

JON WEST Justice

Delivered and filed on the 4th day of December, 2025.