CourtListener 10292512•Eddie v. Picard, Patricia M. Picard, and JPP Ventures, LLC v. Eagle Coiled Tubing, LLC, Hicham "Sean" Mziguir, Michael McCoy, and Gary Williamson
Eddie v. Picard, Patricia M. Picard, and JPP Ventures, LLC v. Eagle Coiled Tubing, LLC, Hicham "Sean" Mziguir, Michael McCoy, and Gary Williamson
CourtListener 10292512Txctapp9Dec 12, 2024
Full text
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-24-00321-CV
__________________
EDDIE V. PICARD, PATRICIA M. PICARD,
AND JPP VENTURES, LLC, Appellants
V.
EAGLE COILED TUBING, LLC, HICHAM "SEAN" MZIGUIR,
MICHAEL MCCOY, AND GARY WILLIAMSON, Appellees
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 284th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 24-08-12344-CV
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On September 17, 2024, Eddie V. Picard, Patricia M. Picard, and JPP
Ventures, LLC, filed a notice of appeal from a judgment of the 284th District Court,
signed on August 1, 2024. On September 19, 2024, we granted an extension of time
to file notice of appeal. Upon receiving the notice of appeal from Appellants, the
Clerk of the Court issued a Bill of Costs for the filing fee for the appeal. By letter
1
dated October 22, 2024, we notified the parties that Appellants had not paid the filing
fee as directed in our letter and Bill of Costs previously forwarded to Appellants. A
Certified Bill of Costs for the filing fee was enclosed and provided to Appellants.
We also warned Appellants that unless the filing fee was paid, the appeal would be
dismissed without further notice on any date after Friday, November 1, 2024. See
Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). As of this date, Appellants have failed to pay the filing fee
as directed by this Court.
On September 30, 2024, the District Clerk notified the Court that Appellants
had failed to pay or to make the arrangements necessary for the District Clerk to
prepare the clerk’s record. Consequently, we notified the parties that Appellants had
not established indigent status and that the clerk’s record had not been filed due to
Appellants’ failure to pay or to arrange to pay the fee required to prepare the clerk’s
record. We also warned Appellants that the appeal would be dismissed for want of
prosecution unless Appellants established that they had made the arrangements
required to pay the fee or that they needed more time to do so. See id. 37.3(b). After
the Clerk sent the parties a letter warning of the consequences of a failure to take the
action necessary to file the clerk’s record, the Court did not receive a response.
2
Because Appellants have not paid the filing fee for the appeal nor have they
explained why they have not paid the fee for the clerk’s record, we dismiss the appeal
for want of prosecution. Id. 5, 42.3, 43.2(f).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on December 11, 2024
Opinion Delivered December 12, 2024
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.
3
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.