Amado Quintero v. Jennifer A. Garcia and Justin R. Kent Appeal from 206th District Court of Hidalgo County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-22-00283-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG AMADO QUINTERO, Appellant, v. JENNIFER A. GARCIA AND JUSTIN R. KENT, Appellees. On appeal from the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides On June 20, 2022, appellant Amado Quintero filed a notice of appeal regarding a final judgment rendered in favor of appellees Jennifer A. Garcia and Justin R. Kent. On June 22, 2022, the Clerk of this Court requested appellant to remit the $205.00 filing fee for the appeal within ten days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (“A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must pay—at the time an item is presented for filing—whatever fees are required by statute or Supreme Court order. The appellate court may enforce this rule by any order that is just.”); TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 51.207 (delineating the required fees and costs in an appellate court). The Clerk also notified appellant that the notice of appeal did not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.1(c) and 25.1(d)(2), requested correction of these defects within thirty days, and advised appellant that the matter would be referred to the Court for further action if the defects were not remedied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.1(c), 25.1(d)(2), 37.1. Appellant did not pay the fee or correct the defects in the notice of appeal. On July 14, 2022, the Clerk notified appellant that he was delinquent in paying the filing fee for the notice of appeal. The Clerk advised appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the filing fee was not paid within ten days. See id. R. 42.3(c). Appellant did not pay the fee or otherwise respond to the Clerk’s directives. The Court, having examined and fully considered the notice of appeal and subsequent events, is of the opinion that this appeal should be dismissed. This Court has the authority to dismiss an appeal because the appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules, a court order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c); Smith v. DC Civil Constr., LLC, 521 S.W.3d 75, 76 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, no pet.). Here, appellant has not paid the appellate filing fee or otherwise responded to the Clerk’s directives. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal because the appellant failed to comply with the requirements of the appellate rules and failed to respond to directives from the 2 Clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). GINA M. BENAVIDES Justice Delivered and filed on the 25th day of August, 2022. 3
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.
