Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2008

Kemp Dubea, Sun Valley Enterprises, Inc., Bettye Estilette and Gene Estilette v. Curtis Crane

Kemp Dubea, Sun Valley Enterprises, Inc., Bettye Estilette and Gene Estilette v. Curtis Crane
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided April 17, 2008

Kemp Dubea, Sun Valley Enterprises, Inc., Bettye Estilette and Gene Estilette v. Curtis Crane

Opinion

NUMBER 13-07-00474-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ______________________________________________________________ KEMP DUBEA, SUN VALLEY ENTERPRISES, INC., BETTYE ESTILETTE, AND GENE ESTILETTE, Appellants, v. CURTIS CRANE , Appellee. _____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 107th District Court of Cameron County, Texas. ______________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Garza Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellants, Kemp Dubea, Sun Valley Enterprises, Inc., Bettye Estilette, and Gene Estilette, appealed a judgment rendered against them in the 107th District Court of Cameron County, Texas. On September 13, 2007, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants that the clerk's record in the above cause was originally due on August 17, 2007, and that the deputy district clerk, Laura Cisneros, had notified this Court that appellants failed to make arrangements for payment of the clerk's record. The Clerk of this Court notified appellants regarding this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See TEX . R. APP. P. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Appellants were advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. On August 17, 2007, the Clerk had similarly notified appellants regarding their failure to make payment arrangements for the reporter’s record in this cause. Appellants failed to respond to the Court’s notices.

The Court, having considered the documents on file, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. See id. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this the 17th day of April, 2008.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.