Carolina Sanchez and all other occupants v. A. Jimenez d/b/a Lulac Village Apt. Appeal from County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County (memorandum opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-23-00295-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG CAROLINA SANCHEZ AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS, Appellants, v. A. JIMENEZ D/B/A LULAC VILLAGE APT., Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5 OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria On January 18, 2024, appellant Carolina Sanchez “and all other occupants” filed a pro se notice of appeal from a judgment of eviction. On January 9, 2024, the Clerk of this Court advised appellants by certified letter that the appellants’ brief was due on December 15, 2023, that the brief had not been timely filed, and that the appeal would be dismissed unless, within ten days, appellants explained the failure to file the brief and the appellee would not be significantly injured by a late filing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c). Because it appeared that appellants failed to receive this certified letter, on February 16, 2024, the Clerk advised appellants by email and regular mail that the brief had not been filed and that the appeal would be dismissed unless, within ten days, appellants explained the failure and the appellee would not be significantly injured by their failure to timely file a brief. See id. Appellants neither responded to the Clerk’s directives nor filed the brief. The Court, having examined and fully considered the foregoing sequence of events, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. R. 38.8(a); Nevarez v. Elguea, 181 S.W.3d 540, 541 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, no pet.). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c). NORA L. LONGORIA Justice Delivered and filed on the 21st day of March, 2024. 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.