Opinion
NUMBER 13-15-00448-CV
01-07-2016
ANDRES MARTINEZ AND MARIA MARTINEZ, Appellants, v. STATE FARM LLOYDS AND FRANCISCO DE LA FUENTE D/B/A DE LA FUENTE AIR CONDITIONING, Appellees.
On appeal from the 332nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Perkes, and Longoria
Memorandum OpinionPer Curiam
Appellants, Andres Martinez and Maria Martinez, appealed a judgment entered by the 332nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. On September 22, 2015, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the notice of appeal failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5(e) and 25.1(d)(1). See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(e), 25.1(d)(1). The Clerk directed appellant to file an amended notice of appeal with the district clerk's office within 30 days from the date of that notice. On November 23, 2015, a clerk's record was filed which contains a notice of appeal identifying the trial court and stating the case's trial court number and style in compliance with Rule 25.1(d)(1), however the notice of appeal is not in compliance with Rule 9.5(e).
On November 23, 2015, the Clerk notified appellants that the notice of appeal was not in compliance with Rule 9.5(e) and warned appellants that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not cured within ten days. Appellants responded that they cannot comply with Rule 9.5(e) or any questions concerning the law because they are ignorant about the law.
Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable rules of procedure. See Green v. Kaposta, 152 S.W.3d 839, 841 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.). An appellate court may dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution or failure to comply with a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b),(c).
The Court, having considered the documents on file, and appellants' failure to correct the defect, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. See id. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a notice from the Court. See id.
PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 7th day of January, 2016.