Vineet Mansukhani v. Sangeeta Mansukhani Appeal from 324th District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-15-00006-CV VINEET MANSUKHANI APPELLANT V. SANGEETA MANSUKHANI APPELLEE ------------ FROM THE 324TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 324-484741-10 ------------ MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT -----------Appellant’s brief was originally due on July 15, 2015. After this court granted several requests for extensions of time to file the brief, appellant filed a noncompliant brief on January 12, 2016. We notified appellant of the specific deficiencies in the brief and requested that he file an amended brief no later than January 29, 2016. We also warned him that the failure to file a compliant brief 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. could result in the striking of the brief he had filed, waiver of noncomplying points, or dismissal of this appeal. Appellant failed to file a corrected brief. We again warned him on February 23, 2016 that this appeal could be dismissed for want of prosecution unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed on or before March 4, 2016, a motion with this court explaining the failure to file the corrected brief and the need for an extension. On March 7, 2016, Appellant filed “Appellant’s Second Motion to Abate; Or, Appellant’s Fourth Motion to Extend the Briefing Deadline,” which we granted on March 8, 2016, ordering appellant to file his compliant brief on or before July 5, 2016. We also stated that no further extensions would be granted, and we again warned that failure to file a compliant appellant’s brief could result in the dismissal of this appeal for want of prosecution. We have yet to receive a compliant appellant’s brief. Because appellant has failed to file a compliant brief in accordance with this court’s March 8, 2016 order, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), (c), 43.2(f). Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. PER CURIAM PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ. DELIVERED: July 28, 2016 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.
