Court of Appeals of Texas, 2012

Bernard Ostroff, Kathleen Ostroff, Chad M. Ostroff, Tyler A. Ostroff and Collin...

Bernard Ostroff, Kathleen Ostroff, Chad M. Ostroff, Tyler A. Ostroff and Collin...
Court of Appeals of Texas · Decided October 4, 2012 · No. 01-11-00394-CV
Bernard Ostroff, Kathleen Ostroff, Chad M. Ostroff, Tyler A. Ostroff and Collin...

Opinion

Opinion issued October 4, 2012

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-11-00394-CV

BERNARD OSTROFF, KATHLEEN OSTROFF, CHAD M. OSTROFF, TYLER A. OSTROFF AND COLLIN SOMERVILLE-OSTROFF,

Appellants

V.

ANTHONY J. MUFFOLETTO, M.D., INDIVIDUALLY, METHODIST ORTHOPEDIC SPECIALISTS OF TEXAS, RANDALL ALAN NEMITZ, M.D., INDIVIDUALLY, GREATER HOUSTON ANESTHESIOLOGY, MEMORIAL HERMANN HOSPITAL SYSTEM, MEMORIAL HERMANN

HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, MEMORIAL HERMANN SOUTHWEST

HOSPITAL, Appellees On Appeal from the 164th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1046882 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, Bernard Ostroff, Kathleen Ostroff, Chad M. Ostroff, Tyler A. Ostroff and Collin Somerville-Ostroff, have neither paid the required fees nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (“A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must pay—at the time an item is presented for filing—whatever fees are required by statute or Supreme Court order.”), 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 51.207 (Vernon Supp. 2011), § 51.941(a) (Vernon 2005), § 101.041 (Vernon Supp. 2011) (requiring payment of fees in court of appeals), Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in TEX. R. APP. P. app. A § B(1) (listing required fees in court of appeals).

On July 16, 2012, the Court notified appellants that the appeal was subject to dismissal for failure to pay the required fees. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (authorizing enforcement of rule), 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution). On August 9, 2012, appellees moved for dismissal for want of prosecution because appellants had not paid the required fees. Appellants did not respond to the Court’s notice or to appellees’ motion to dismiss.

We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.