Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00028-CV
Carmelita RILEY and Anthony Pena,
Appellants
v.
Puig Management and Rentals,
Lizette TORRES, Paula Pueblitz, San Juanita Valdez and Puig Management and Rentals, LLC,
Appellees
From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2012CVF001192-D3
Honorable Rebecca Ramirez Palomo, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 3, 2014
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION
On March 5, 2014, this appeal was dismissed because appellants failed to pay the
applicable filing fee. On March 21, 2014, appellants filed a motion to reinstate this appeal. We
granted the motion, withdrew our opinion and judgment, and reinstated the appeal. Appellants then
paid the applicable filing fee. On April 10, 2014, we issued an order explaining that the court
reporter had filed a notification of late reporter’s record, stating that appellants had failed to pay
or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the reporter’s record. We therefore ordered
appellants to provide written proof to this court by April 21, 2014 that either (1) the reporter’s fee
04-14-00028-CV
had been paid or arrangements had been made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) they were entitled
to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee. We further explained that if appellants failed to respond
within the time provided, appellants’ brief would be due on or before May 21, 2014, and we would
consider only those issues or points raised in appellants’ brief that do not require a reporter’s record
for a decision. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). Because appellants did not respond to our order,
appellants’ brief was due to be filed on May 12, 2014. No brief was filed. Therefore, on May 29,
2014, we ordered appellants to file on or before June 9, 2014, their appellants’ brief and a written
response reasonably explaining (1) their failure to timely file the brief and (2) why appellees are
not significantly injured by their failure to timely file a brief. On June 9, 2014, appellants filed a
motion for extension of time to file their brief, requesting a forty-five day extension. On June 18,
2014, we granted the motion and ordered appellants to file their brief on or before July 25, 2014.
On July 25, 2014, appellants filed another motion for extension of time to file their brief. We
granted the motion and ordered appellants’ brief to be filed on or before September 8, 2014.
However, we warned that no further extensions would be granted. On September 8, 2014,
appellants filed yet again another motion for extension of time, stating that they were only
requesting a three-day extension. We denied their motion for extension of time and ordered them
to file, on or before October 13, 2014, their appellants’ brief and a written response explaining
their failure to timely file the brief and why appellees are not significantly injured by their failure
to timely file a brief. We explained that if appellants failed to file a brief and the written response
by the date ordered, we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P.
38.8(a); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal if appellant has failed to
comply with a court order). We also explained that no motions for extension of time would be
granted.
-2-
04-14-00028-CV
Appellants failed to file their brief or otherwise respond to our order. We therefore dismiss
this appeal for want of prosecution.
PER CURIAM
-3-