Karen and David Williamson v. Janie Kellner

NUMBER 13-00-526-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

KAREN AND DAVID WILLIAMSON , Appellants,

v.

JANIE KELLNER, ET AL. , Appellees.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 214th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

__________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Dorsey and Rodriguez

Per Curiam

Appellants, Karen and David Williamson, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 214th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 97-4740-F. On March 3, 2001, this Court marked appellant's brief "received." However, because the brief did not comply with rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we advised appellants it would be necessary for them to file an amended brief within ten days. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. Appellants timely tendered their amended brief on March 13, 2001; however, this brief also failed to comply with the rules of appellate procedure. See id. Appellants were further advised in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3 that, if a proper appellate brief was not filed within ten days, the appeal would be dismissed for failure to comply with the rules of appellate procedure and this court's order. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. The period of ten days has elapsed, and no amended brief has been received. ⁽¹⁾

Accordingly, the Court, having considered the documents on file and appellants' failure to file a proper appellate brief, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. The appeal is hereby dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish .

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this 28th day of March, 2002.

1. On the last day of the ten-day period, this Court received appellants' motion for additional time to file an amended brief and motion to compel defendants to provide all filings. The document was unsigned and contained no certificate of conference. Moreover, appellants prayed that,

[t]here is nothing more to present: close the Briefing process; no extension prior request: now Appellant will require access to all the filing documents to be able to complete this task to AMEND; thus requests release of such which is yet another undue hardship: instead of SWB just doing their jobs!

Both motions were denied.