ASI Aviation, LLC, Aircraft Charter Management Services, LLC, Justin Smith, T & T Air LLC and CSG Aviation, LLC v. Arnold & Itkin LLP Appeal from 107th District Court of Cameron County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-16-00612-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ ASI AVIATION, LLC, AIRCRAFT CHARTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, JUSTIN SMITH, T & T AIR LLC, AND CSG AVIATION, LLC, Appellants, v. ARNOLD & ITKIN LLP, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 107th District Court of Cameron County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion by Justice Contreras Appellants ASI Aviation, LLC, Aircraft Charter Management Services, LLC, Justin Smith, T & T Air LLC, and CSG Aviation, LLC filed a notice of appeal from a judgment rendered against them in cause number 2015-DCL-07150-A in the 107th District Court of Cameron County, Texas. On December 13, 2016, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants that the reporter’s record in the above cause was originally due on December 5, 2016, and that the court reporter, Sue Chaney Saenz, had notified this Court that appellants had failed to request the reporter’s record and make arrangements for the reporter’s record. The Clerk notified appellants that the Court would consider and decide those issues or points that did not require a reporter’s record for a decision unless the defect was cured within ten days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). On January 3, 2017, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants that that the deputy district clerk, Nora Gonzalez, had notified this Court that appellants failed to make arrangements for payment of the clerk's record. The clerk’s record in this cause was originally due on December 5, 2017, but this deadline had been extended until January 3, 2017. The Clerk of this Court notified appellants of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Appellants were advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellants have failed to respond to this Court’s notices. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). DORI CONTRERAS Justice Delivered and filed the 23rd day of February, 2017. 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.
