Opinion
10-22-00389-CV
05-20-2024
SULMA GONZALES, Appellant v. CC ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 1 McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 20221113CV1.
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith
MEMORANDUM OPINION
TOM GRAY, Chief Justice
Sulma Gonzales was determined to be a vexatious litigant in the probate court of Dallas County on November 16, 2020. Gonzales appealed the trial court's finding, and it was affirmed. Estate of Pandozy, 634 S.W.3d 288 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2021, no pet.). This Court was unaware of Gonzales's status until the appellee recently informed the Court. After receiving a copy of the order declaring Gonzales as a vexatious litigant, the Court advised Gonzales that she had ten days to provide this Court with either proof that she is not a vexatious litigant or authorization to proceed with this appeal. Gonzales filed a motion for continuance with this Court seeking an additional 30 days to get permission to appeal. Gonzales did not deny her status as a vexatious litigant, although in her motion for continuance she indicated that she questions "the interpretation and application of the law which led to the vexatious litigant rulings," an issue which she previously appealed but was decided against her. See id. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See Tex. Civ. Prac. and Remedies Code §§ 11.1035(b).
For reasons unknown to the Court, Gonzales's name does not appear on the vexatious litigant list maintained by the Office of Court Administration. See Tex. Civ. Prac. and Remedies Code §11.104. Thus, this Court was unaware of Gonzales's status as a vexatious litigant until the Court received a copy of the trial court's vexatious litigant order after being notified of its potential existence by the appellee.
Gonzales's motion for continuance filed on May 10, 2024 is denied.
To whatever degree Gonzales has attempted to seek permission to proceed with this appeal from a trial court judge, she has not gotten permission. We note that Gonzales was aware of her status as a vexatious litigant when she initiated this appeal and has had a significant period of time in which to seek permission to appeal but has not done so.
Dismissed; motion denied.