Opinion
No. 08-14-00003-CV
03-21-2014
JT Masonry, Inc., Appellant, v. Sunlight Enterprises Co., Inc., Appellee.
Appeal from the
120th District Court
of El Paso County, Texas
(TC# 2013DCV1680)
ORDER
Pending before the Court are Appellants' "NOTICE OF DEFAULT TO THE COURT AND MOTION FOR MANDATE WITH SUMMARY DISPOSITION AGAINST APPELLEE" (hereinafter referred to as Motion #1), "AMENDED CORRECTION OF DEFAULT HEARING AND MOTION IN COMPLAINCE (sic) TO RULE 9.5 & 10 R.R.A.P. FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION AGAINST APPELLEE" (hereinafter referred to as Motion #2) and "NOTICE FOR COURT CLERK TO CORRECT THE MASTER DOCKET NOW IN VIOLATION OF 18 USC §2071" (hereinafter referred to as Notice to Correct the Docket).
Appellants filed their notice of appeal in the trial court on December 20, 2013. On January 16, 2014, Appellants submitted for filing a document which the Court construed as their brief. Because the record had not been filed, the Court received the brief but did not file it. The trial court clerk filed the clerk's record on February 14, 2014. On February 24, 2014, the court reporter filed a letter advising the Court that Appellants have not paid for the reporter's record or made financial arrangements for the reporter's record to be prepared and filed. On March 14, 2014, the Court filed Appellants' brief which had been received on January 16, 2014.
In Motions #1 and 2, Appellants asserts that Appellee has defaulted because it failed to file its brief by March 6, 2014. Appellee's brief is not due to be filed until April 13, 2014. See TEX.R.APP.P. 38.6(b)("The appellee's brief must be filed within 30 days--20 days in an accelerated appeal--after the date the appellant's brief was filed."). Further, the Rules of Appellate Procedure do not require the appellee to file a brief nor do the Rules provide a procedure for taking a "default judgment" in the event the appellee fails to file its brief by the due date. Motions #1 and 2 are DENIED.
In their Notice to Correct the Docket, Appellants request that the Clerk of the Court correct the docket. Appellants assert that the Clerk has purposely manipulated the docket in violation of federal law and in collusion with Appellee's attorney of record, Juan Carlos Garay. The Court has not had any communications with Appellee or its counsel other than routine notices being transmitted. The Court has reviewed the appellate record, the documents filed in the case, and the entries made by the Clerk's Office. The Court has found no evidence of any errors made by the Clerk's Office requiring correction. Appellants' request to correct the docket is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of March, 2014.
PER CURIAM Before McClure, C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez, JJ.
(Rivera, J., not participating)