Keith Wiley v. Hollywood Kingley II, LLC; Lighthouse Property Management; Tropicanyon II, LLC; Marque Austin Commons, LLC; Okumo Austin Commons, LLC; Quez Austin Commons, LLC; and Capstone Real Estate Appeal from 201st District Court of Travis County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-16-00368-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ KEITH WILEY, Appellant, v. HOLLYWOOD KINGLEY II, LLC; LIGHTHOUSE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT; TROPICANYON II, LLC; MARQUE AUSTIN COMMONS, LLC; OKUMO AUSTIN COMMONS, LLC; QUEZ AUSTIN COMMONS, LLC; AND CAPSTONE REAL ESTATE, Appellees. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 201st District Court of Travis County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Keith Wiley, filed an appeal from a judgment rendered against him in favor of appellees.1 On July 27, 2016, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the 1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 clerk's record in the above cause was originally due on July 22, 2016, and that the deputy district clerk, Victoria Chambers, had notified this Court that appellant failed to make arrangements for payment of the clerk's record. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant 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). Appellant was 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. On August 8, 2016, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that he was delinquent in remitting a $205.00 filing fee. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal if the filing fee was not paid within ten days from the date of receipt of this letter. See id. 42.3(b),(c). Appellant has failed to respond to this Court’s notices and has failed to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 2nd day of September, 2016. (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). 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.
