Donald E Kilpatrick v. Noble Capital Servicing LLC Appeal from Co Civil Ct at Law No 3 of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 26, 2017. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00356-CV DONALD E. KILPATRICK, Appellant V. NOBLE CAPITAL SERVICING LLC, Appellee On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 3 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1088694 MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a judgment signed February 22, 2017. The clerk’s record was filed May 8, 2017. No reporter’s record has been filed in this case. The court reporter informed this court that appellant has not made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record. On June 21, 2017, the clerk of this court notified appellant that we would consider and decide those issues that do not require a reporter’s record unless appellant, within 15 days of notice, provided this court with proof that he had requested the record and paid or made arrangements to pay for the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c). Appellant filed no response. On August 8, 2017, the court ordered appellant to filed a brief by September 7, 2017. We cautioned that if appellant failed to comply with our order, we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). No brief was filed. Hurricane Harvey struck the Texas coast on August 25, 2017. On August 28, 2017, the Supreme Court of Texas issued Misc. Docket No. 17-9091, an emergency order directing all courts in Texas to consider disaster-related delays as good cause for modifying or suspending all deadlines in any case. As a result, on September 19, 2017, the court issued another order regarding appellant’s brief. We stated that if appellant did not file a brief by October 2, 2017, the court would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). No brief was filed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Busby, and Donovan. 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.
