Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2011

William Mayes v. Borges Texas Properties, LLC

William Mayes v. Borges Texas Properties, LLC
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided March 31, 2011

William Mayes v. Borges Texas Properties, LLC

Opinion

NUMBER 13-10-00592-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ WILLIAM MAYES, Appellant, v. BORGES TEXAS PROPERTIES, LLC, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 of Hidalgo County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Vela Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, William Mayes, appealed a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 4 of Hidalgo County, Texas. On October 28, 2010, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the notice of appeal failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and 25.1(d). See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5, 25.1(d). The Clerk directed appellant to file an amended notice of appeal with the district clerk's office within 30 days from the date of that notice. The letter was sent to appellant's last known address; however, the notice was returned as “moved, left no address,” and no response has been filed. The Court has attempted to contact appellant by telephone but the number has been disconnected.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.1(b) requires unrepresented parties to sign any document filed and "give the party's mailing address, telephone number, and fax number, if any." See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.1(b). Appellant has neither provided this court with a forwarding address or taken any other action to prosecute this appeal.

Rule 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 id. 42.3(b), (c). Rule 2 authorizes an appellate court to suspend a rule's operation in a particular case to expedite a decision.

See id. 2. Given the length of inactivity in this appeal and this court's inability to give effective notice to appellant during the period of inactivity, we suspend Rule 42.3's requirement of ten days' notice to all parties, and dismiss the appeal on our own motion.

See id. 42.3(b), (c).

PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 31st day of March, 2011.

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