Edgar Rodriguez v. Lynn O. Rodriguez Appeal from 428th District Court of Hays County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-15-00512-CV Edgar Rodriguez, Appellant v. Lynn O. Rodriguez, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 428TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 14-1600, HONORABLE BRENDA K. SMITH, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM The Clerk of this Court filed appellant’s notice of appeal on August 12, 2015, and the clerk and reporter’s records were due on September 8, 2015. On September 14, 2015, the Clerk of this Court sent notice to appellant that the records were overdue and requested that appellant make arrangements for payment and submit a status report on or before September 24, 2015. Appellant has filed a status report with the Court, requesting that the appeal be continued because a hearing before the district court is scheduled on October 22, 2015, to consider his request for a de novo hearing from the associate judge to the district court. According to appellant, he has contacted the court reporter but the making of the record will be moot if the district court grants his request for a de novo hearing. Appellee also has filed a response to the status report. She contends that appellant’s portrayal of the facts is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading, but she agrees that a hearing is scheduled with the district court for October 22, 2015. Under these circumstances, the parties and this Court should not be required to expend resources on an appeal that may be rendered moot. Thus, in the interest of conserving judicial resources, we abate this appeal. All appellate deadlines will be tolled during the period of abatement. Absent further order of this Court, this appeal will be automatically reinstated on November 2, 2015. The parties are directed to file either a status report or a motion to dismiss by that date. Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland Abated Filed: October 6, 2015 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.
