Claudia Pahola Almazan and All Occupants v. Erick Guerrero Tellez ( 2023 )

NUMBER 13-22-00552-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
CLAUDIA PAHOLA ALMAZAN
AND ALL OCCUPANTS, Appellants,
v.
ERICK GUERRERO TELLEZ, Appellee.
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides
This case involves an eviction dispute. On August 17, 2022, a justice of the peace
court in Hidalgo County entered a judgment against appellant Claudia Pahola Almazan
and awarded possession of certain real property to appellee Erick Guerrero Tellez.
Almazan filed a notice of appeal, but the appeal was later dismissed by Hidalgo County
Court at Law No. 6 for want of jurisdiction because Almazan failed to timely pay the
associated filing fee. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 143a (providing that an appeal from a justice of
the peace court “shall be deemed not perfected” if the appellant fails to pay the costs on
appeal within twenty days of receiving notice from the county clerk).
On November 8, 2022, Almazan filed a notice of appeal in this Court challenging
the dismissal order. On May 3, 2023, we notified Almazan that her brief was twenty days
past due and that her appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution if she did
not take certain corrective actions within ten days of our notice. See TEX. R. APP. P.
38.6(a) (establishing appellant’s briefing schedule); id. R. 38.8(a)(1) (“If an appellant [in a
civil case] fails to timely file a brief, the appellate court may . . . dismiss the appeal for
want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee
is not significantly injured by the appellant’s failure to timely file a brief . . . .”).
To date, Almazan has not responded to our notice, filed a brief, or filed a motion
for leave to file an out-of-time brief. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of
prosecution.1 See id. R. 38.8(a)(1).
GINA M. BENAVIDES
Justice
Delivered and filed on the
1st day of June, 2023.
1 Also before the Court is appellee’s combined “Motion to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction and for
Sanctions for Filing of Frivolous Appeal.” Appellee’s jurisdictional challenge is denied as moot. See
Bouboudakis v. Bouboudakis, No. 14-07-00256-CV, 2007 WL 1558743, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] May 31, 2007) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal for want of prosecution and denying jurisdictional
challenge as moot). After due consideration, we deny appellee’s motion for sanctions.
2