CLIFF AND LETICIA McKELVY v. STATE FARM LLOYDS, KINGDOM ASSOCIATES, INC., D/B/A SERVICEMASTER BAY AREA AND ROBERT LLORENTE--Appeal from 23rd District Court of Matagorda County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-08-00270-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ______________________________________________________________ CLIFF AND LETICIA McKELVY, Appellants, v. STATE FARM LLOYDS, KINGDOM ASSOCIATES, INC., D/B/A SERVICEMASTER BAY AREA , AND ROBERT LLORENTE, Appellees. _____________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 23rd District Court of Matagorda County, Texas. ______________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellants, Cliff and Leticia McKelvy, perfected an appeal from summary judgments rendered against them in favor of appellees, State Farm Lloyds and Kingdom Associates, Inc., d/b/a Servicemaster Bay Area and Robert Llorente. On August 12, 2008, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the clerk's record in the above cause was originally due on May 30, 2008, and that the district clerk, Becky Denn, had notified this Court that appellant failed to make arrangements for payment of the clerk's record. The Clerk of this Court notified appellants of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See TEX . R. APP. P. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Appellants were advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellants failed to respond to the Court s notice. State Farm Lloyds has now filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. The Court, having considered the documents on file and State Farm Lloyd s motion to dismiss, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See id. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. PER CURIAM Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this the 6th day of November, 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.
