Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2008

Independent Contractors, Inc. v. Pdlr Investments, Ltd., Assignee in Interest of La Mansion Del Paseo, Ltd.

Independent Contractors, Inc. v. Pdlr Investments, Ltd., Assignee in Interest of La Mansion Del Paseo, Ltd.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided April 17, 2008

Independent Contractors, Inc. v. Pdlr Investments, Ltd., Assignee in Interest of La Mansion Del Paseo, Ltd.

Opinion











NUMBER 13-07-00724-CV



COURT OF APPEALS



THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, INC., APPELLANT,



v.


PDLR INVESTMENTS, LTD., ASSIGNEE

IN INTEREST OF LA MANSION DEL PASEO, LTD., APPELLEE.

_____________________________________________________________



On Appeal from the 357th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________



MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam



Appellant, Independent Contractors, Inc., appealed a judgment rendered against it in the 357th District Court of Cameron County, Texas. On February 6, 2008, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the clerk's record in the above cause was originally due on December 31, 2007, and that the deputy district clerk, Laura Cisneros, had notified this Court that appellant failed to make arrangements for payment of the clerk's record. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant of 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). Appellant was 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 February 14, 2008, the Clerk sent appellant a similar notice regarding appellant's failure to make arrangements for payment of the reporter's record. To date, appellant has failed to respond to the Court's notices.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's failure to respond to the Court's notices, 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 17thday of April, 2008.









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