IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
MAY 4, 2005
______________________________
JORGE VALENCIANA,
Appellant
V.
HEREFORD BI-PRODUCTS MANAGEMENT, LTD. & HEREFORD BI-PRODUCTS
MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., & GARTH MERRICK, formerly known as and/or
successors in interest to HEREFORD BI-PRODUCTS, INC.,
Appellees
_________________________________
FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
NO. B32163-0205; HON. EDWARD LEE SELF, PRESIDING
_______________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
_______________________________
Before QUINN, REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
Appellant Jorge Valenciana filed a notice of appeal on February 15, 2004. The clerk's and reporter's records were due to be filed on or about March 15, 2005. In response to a letter sent to the clerk requesting the record, the clerk notified this court on March 14, 2005, that appellant had not filed a written designation of the record. On March 28, 2005, and in response to a letter to the court reporter requesting the record, the reporter notified this court that appellant had not submitted a written designation for the record and had not paid or made arrangements to pay for the record. To date, no clerk's or reporter's records have been received. On April 14, 2005, counsel for appellant was directed by letter to provide this court with proof that he either paid for the record or made satisfactory arrangements for payment of the record on or before April 25, 2005. So too was he told that the failure to comply with the court's directive would result in dismissal. The deadline lapsed, and the court simply received, from appellant's counsel, a phone call notifying the clerk's office that a response was sent on April 25, 2005. Nothing was said about arrangements having been made regarding payment for the record, despite our directive. Moreover, we received nothing illustrating that payment for the reporter's record has been made to or arrangements for its payment have been made with the court reporter.
Because appellant failed to comply with our April 14th directive, we dismiss the appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b) and (c).
Per Curiam
="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
NO. 07-10-0262-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
DECEMBER 15, 2010
MULTIPLAN, INC., APPELLANT
v.
PRINCIPAL LIFE INSURANCE CO., APPELLEE
FROM THE 99TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 2007-541,633; HONORABLE WILLIAM C. SOWDER, JUDGE
Before CAMPBELL, HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Multiplan, Inc. and appellee Principal Life Insurance Company have filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal because they have reached a settlement. The motion is signed by attorneys for both parties. Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) and dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). Based on the agreement of the parties, costs of the appeal are taxed against the party incurring them. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).
Having dismissed the appeal at the parties request, we will not entertain a motion for rehearing and will issue our mandate forthwith.
James T. Campbell
Justice