MAYRA LIEN YANEZ v. SHARON TANDRE COLLIER--Appeal from County Court at Law No 2 of Hidalgo County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-11-00415-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ MAYRA LIEN YANEZ, Appellant, v. SHARON TANDRE COLLIER, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 of Hidalgo County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam This case is before the Court on appellee s motion to dismiss. Appellant, Mayra Lien Yanez, appealed a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 2 of Hidalgo County, Texas. On July 11, 2011, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the notice of appeal failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5(e). See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(e). 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. On August 23, 2011, the Clerk notified appellant that the defect had not been corrected and warned appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not cured within ten days. Appellant has not responded to the notice from the Clerk or corrected the defect. On October 13, 2011, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant, in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless the $175.00 filing fee was paid. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Appellant has not responded to the notice from the Clerk or paid the $175.00 filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 12.1(b). An appellate court may dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution or failure to comply with a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b),(c). The Court, having considered appellee s motion to dismiss, the documents on file, and appellant=s failure to correct the defect or pay the filing fee, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. See id. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Accordingly, appellee s motion is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a notice from the Court. See id. PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 26th day of January, 2012. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
