Opinion
No. 05-05-01147-CV
Opinion Filed December 1, 2005.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. CC-04-12558-A.
Dismiss.
Before Chief Justice THOMAS and Justices LANG-MIERS and MAZZANT.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On August 24, 2005, R.K. Panditi filed his notice of appeal "from the judgment" in this case. Three weeks later, the Court received the reporter's record from a hearing on postjudgment collection efforts. Because it appeared to this Court that Panditi was appealing the trial court's ruling to compel postjudgment discovery, we questioned our jurisdiction. In particular, this Court has previously concluded that a writ of mandamus is the proper procedure to complain about a post-judgment discovery order. Bielamowicz v. Cedar Hill Indep. Sch. Dist., 136 S.W.3d 718, 719, 723 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, pet. denied).
By letter dated October 3, 2005, we requested Panditi to file within ten days a brief explaining how this Court had jurisdiction over his appeal. We informed Panditi that, if he were relying on a document not currently before the Court to establish jurisdiction, to file the document in a supplemental clerk's record. We cautioned Panditi that his failure to file a brief within the time allowed could result in his appeal being dismissed without further notice.
On October 17, 2005, this Court received a letter from Panditi agreeing that a petition for writ of mandamus was "the proper way to complain of a post judgment discovery order." Panditi then asked to extend the time for ten more days, presumably to file a jurisdictional brief. The Court treated Panditi's request as a motion, notified him that he needed to pay the $10 filing fee, and cautioned that the motion would not be considered if the fee was not paid. Panditi was given ten days to pay the fee.
As of today's date, Panditi has not paid the $10 fee or otherwise communicated to this Court regarding his appeal. In fact, Panditi has not responded to our notices that his docketing statement is overdue and his notice of appeal is defective.
Because Panditi is appealing the trial court's order compelling postjudgment discovery, we conclude we do not have jurisdiction. See Bielamowicz, 136 S.W.3d at 719 723. Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.