Robert M. Stone, Raymond S. DeLeon, and John Salas v. The Carlson Law Firm Appeal from 407th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-19-00020-CV Robert M. STONE, Raymond S. DeLeon, and John Salas, Appellants v. THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, Appellee From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2015-CI-16271 Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Delivered and Filed: March 27, 2019 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION Appellants’ brief was originally due to be filed by February 19, 2019. This court granted appellants’ first request for extension of time to file the brief until February 22, 2019. On February 22, 2019, rather than file the brief, appellants filed a motion to abate this appeal based on a partial settlement reached in the trial court. Because the motion did not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.1(a)(5), this court denied the motion. On March 6, 2019, because appellants had not filed the brief or a motion for extension of time to file the brief, this court ordered appellants to file by March 18, 2019 the brief and a written 04-19-00020-CV response reasonably explaining: (1) their failure to timely file a brief, and (2) why appellee is not significantly injured by appellants’ failure to timely file a brief. We advised appellants that if they failed to timely file a brief and the written response, we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal if appellant fails to comply with court order). Appellants did not file a brief or a written response complying with the March 6 order. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. PER CURIAM -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.
