Ramesh Kapur, dba AIC Management Company v. Cassandra Pleasant Appeal from Co Civil Ct at Law No 2 of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued September 29, 2015 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-14-00236-CV ——————————— RAMESH KAPUR, DBA AIC MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Appellant V. CASSANDRA PLEASANT, Appellee On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1013763 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Ramesh Kapur dba AIC Management Company, appeals from a final judgment, signed December 11, 2013. The clerk’s record was filed on April 1, 2014. On May 2, 2014, the court reporter advised that appellant had not made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record. Thereafter, this Court issued a notice to appellant that if he did not make arrangements to file the reporter’s record by June 4, 2014, we would order appellant to file his brief and this Court would consider those issues not requiring a reporter’s record.1 A second notice issued on November 6, 2014, directing appellant to file the reporter’s record by December 8, 2014, or the court would order appellant’s brief due and would consider those issues not requiring a reporter’s record. No record was filed. On February 8, 2015, this Court issued an order, advising appellant that we were setting appellant’s brief due thirty days from the date of the order and that we would consider issues not requiring a reporter’s record. No brief was filed. On April 15, 2015, this Court issued a notice that the brief was late and that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless, within ten days from the date of notice, appellant filed his brief with a motion for extension of time, or filed a motion for extension of time, stating facts reasonably explaining the failure to timely file his brief and that appellee was not significantly injured by appellant’s failure to timely file his brief. No brief or motion was filed. Because appellant has not filed a brief, despite numerous notices from this Court that the brief was due, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1). Any pending motions are denied as moot. 1 This notice was returned to sender (this Court); however a clerk of this Court spoke to appellant on the telephone and he assured her that the address on file was correct. On November 5, 2014, this Court sent appellant a notice that he could receive notices from the Court by email. 2 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle. 3
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.
