NUMBER 13-05-465-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG __________________________________________________________________ DOV AVNI KAMINETZKY A/K/A DON K. AVNI, Appellant, v. DAVID A. NEWMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, ET AL., Appellees. __________________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 333rd District Court of Harris County, Texas. __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Benavides Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam On May 2, 2008, this Court struck appellant’s brief in the above cause and ordered the appellant to redraw his brief within fifteen days. See TEX . R. APP. P. 38.9. Appellant’s brief was due, therefore, on May 17, 2008. Appellant has failed to file a re-drawn brief and therefore has (1) failed to prosecute his appeal, and (2) has failed to comply with this Court’s order. See id. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b),(c). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. Id.; see Clemens v. Allen, 47 S.W.3d 26, 28 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2000, no pet.) (dismissing appeal for want of prosecution where appellant failed to correct deficiencies in brief after notice by court of appeals).1 PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this the 29th day of July, 2008.

There are several m otions pending by the parties. First, on February 7, 2008, appellees, along with Lori Blank, who is described as an “interested person,” (collectively “appellees”) filed a m otion with this Court to cancel two lis pendens allegedly filed by appellant as a result of this litigation. Appellees argue that the lis pendens are void, and because the appeal is now pending in this Court, we m ay issue an order to that effect.

See T EX . P R O P . C OD E A N N . § 12.008(a) (Vernon 2003) (stating that “the court hearing the action m ay cancel the lis pendens at any tim e during the proceeding”). Our jurisdiction is governed by Texas Governm ent Code section 22.220, which gives us appellate jurisdiction over civil cases. T EX . G O V ’T C OD E A N N . § 22.220 (Vernon 2004). T exas Property Code section 12.008 does not give us original jurisdiction to determ ine the facts necessary to find that the lis pendens at issue here are void. Such a determ ination m ust be m ade by the trial court in the first instance, subject to our review on appeal or by m andam us. Id. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004).

Accordingly, the m otion to cancel the lis pendens is not properly before this Court, and we dism iss the m otion for lack of subject-m atter jurisdiction.

Having said that, we note that when a plaintiff files a lis pendens, and litigation is term inated in favor of the defendant, there is no further need for a lis pendens. R.I.O. Sys., Inc. v. Union Carbide Corp., 780 S.W .2d 489, 493 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1989, writ denied). If the appellant in this case chooses not to appeal to or is unsuccessful in appeal to the Texas Suprem e Court, he should, consistent with this law, agree to release the lis pendens. Should he unreasonably fail to do so, such failure m ay then be the subject of a suit to rem ove the cloud on title caused by the lis pendens.

In response to appellees’ m otion to cancel the lis pendens, appellant filed a m otion for sanctions. W e deny the m otion. All other pending m otions are dism issed as m oot.