In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-17-00104-CV
LUIS LOEZA, Appellant
V.
SPCA OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 443rd District Court
Ellis County, Texas
Trial Court No. 95986
Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Luis Loeza filed a notice of appeal in this matter on September 26, 2017.1 The clerk’s and
reporter’s records were due to be filed with this Court on or before October 23, 2017. On October
23, the district clerk filed a motion for extension of time in which to file the record on the basis
that no payment and no arrangement for payment for preparation of the clerk’s record had been
made by Loeza. We granted the clerk’s motion, resulting in a due date for the clerk’s record of
November 22, 2017. On or about October 25, the court reporter who recorded the proceedings in
the trial court informed our clerk’s office that no payment and no arrangement for payment for the
preparation of the reporter’s record had been made by Loeza.
Loeza is not indigent and is, therefore, responsible for payment of the fees related to
preparation of the appellate record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1; 35.3(a)(2), (b)(3); 37.3(b), (c). By
letter dated November 27, 2017, and pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 37.3 and
42.3, we notified Loeza of this defect and provided him an opportunity to cure it. Further, we
warned Loeza that if we did not receive an adequate response to our defect letter within ten days
of the date of the letter, this appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), (c), 42.3(b).
1
Originally appealed to the Tenth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme
Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (Vernon 2005). We are
unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Tenth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
2
We have received no communication from Loeza responsive to our November 27
correspondence. Consequently, this appeal is ripe for dismissal. Pursuant to Rule 37.3,
subsections (b) and (c), and Rule 42.3(b), we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 37.3(b), (c); 42.3(b).
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice
Date Submitted: December 27, 2017
Date Decided: December 28, 2017
Do Not Publish
3