HARROD'S PROPERTIES, INC. D/B/A HOLIDAY INN, LTD. v. HELDT ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A RAINBOW INTERNATIONAL CLEANING AND RESTORATION--Appeal from 135th District Court of Victoria County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-08-00098-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ______________________________________________________________ HARROD'S PROPERTIES, INC. D/B/A HOLIDAY INN, LTD., Appellant, v. HELDT ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A RAINBOW INTERNATIONAL CLEANING AND RESTORATION, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 135th District Court of Victoria County, Texas. ______________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Benavides Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam The appellant's brief in the above cause was due on March 20, 2008. On April 2, 2008, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief had not been timely filed and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date of receipt of this letter, appellant reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was not significantly injured by the appellant's failure to timely file a brief. See TEX . R. APP . P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellant failed to respond to this Court s notice. On March 25, 2008, the Clerk further informed appellant that it was delinquent in remitting a $175.00 filing fee due in our Court for the filing of the notice of appeal on February 19, 2008, and noted that it had previously been notified that this filing fee was due. The Clerk notified appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the filing fee was not paid within ten days from the date of this notice. See id. 42.3(c). Appellant failed to pay this fee. Appellant has failed to either reasonably explain his failure to file a brief, file a motion for extension of time to file his brief, or file his brief. Appellant has further failed to pay required fees as directed by the Clerk of this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX . R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b),(c). PER CURIAM Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this the 3rd day of July, 2008. 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.
