pacific-employers-insurance-company-v-ludwig-g-yap-juliana-t-yap ( 2004 )

MARY'S OPINION HEADING NO. 12-04-00007-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

PACIFIC EMPLOYERS

§ APPEAL FROM THE 115TH

INSURANCE COMPANY,

APPELLANT

V.

LUDWIG G. YAP, JULIANA T. YAP, § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

BRIGHAM HANSLEY, STINGER

WELLHEAD PROTECTION, INC., AND

TOM PRITCHARD, AS THE PERSONAL

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE

OF PATRIC PAUL PRITCHARD,

APPELLEES

§ UPSHUR COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). Appellant perfected its appeal on January 8, 2004. Thereafter, the reporter's record was filed on February 9, 2004, making Appellant's brief due on or before March 10, 2004. When Appellant failed to file its brief within the required time, this court notified Appellant on March 15, 2004 that the brief was past due and warned that if no motion for extension of time to file the brief were received by March 25, 2004, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution under Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). The notice further informed Appellant that the motion for extension of time must contain a reasonable explanation for its failure to file the brief and a showing that Appellee had not suffered material injury thereby.

To date, Appellant has neither responded to the notice nor filed a motion for extension of time to file its brief. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(b).

  Opinion delivered March 30, 2004.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.  

(PUBLISH)