Opinion
13-17-00164-CV
06-06-2024
SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., Appellant, v. TERESA HAYS, Appellee.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS
Before Justices Benavides, Tijerina, and Silva
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GINA M. BENAVIDES Justice
In April 2016, appellee Teresa Hays filed suit against appellant Sears, Roebuck & Co., asserting a claim for premises liability. Sears later moved to stay the trial court proceedings and compel arbitration, arguing that because Hays was allegedly injured in the course and scope of her employment with Sears, she was subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement between the parties. The trial court denied the motion, and Sears filed its notice of interlocutory appeal on March 27, 2017. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 171.098(a)(1).
On October 24, 2018, before the appeal was submitted, Sears filed a suggestion of bankruptcy, informing the Court that Sears had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy; and therefore, the appeal was subject to an automatic stay. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). Accordingly, on November 29, 2018, we abated the appeal and instructed the parties to advise the Court of any change in status of the bankruptcy proceeding that would affect the status of the appeal, including but not limited to, the filing of a motion to reinstate pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 8.3. See Tex. R. App. P. 8.2, 8.3.
On September 2, 2020, Sears filed an advisory informing the Court that the bankruptcy proceeding remained ongoing, including the automatic stay, and requesting that the Court retain the appeal on its docket. On September 10, 2021, and September 15, 2022, Sears filed similar advisories informing the Court that the status of the bankruptcy proceeding and Sears' desire to maintain the appeal on our docket remained unchanged.
Sears did not file an advisory in September 2023. On October 3, 2023, the Court sent both parties a notice requesting an advisory on the status of the appeal and warning that a failure to respond within ten days would result in dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. See id. R. 42.3(b) (providing that appellate courts may dismiss appeal for want of prosecution after giving 10 days' notice to all parties). To date-more than seven months since our notice-neither party has responded.
Therefore, we reinstate the appeal for the purpose of dismissal and dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See id.; see also Winn v. Lawson, No. 07-15-00140-CV, 2021 WL 1991765, at *1 (Tex. App.-Amarillo May 18, 2021, order) (per curiam) (reinstating and dismissing appeal for want of prosecution after parties failed to respond to appellate court's request for status update on bankruptcy proceeding).