Summary
In this memorandum opinion, the Eighth District Court of Appeals of Texas dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal with prejudice for want of prosecution. The court relied on the termination of Holland’s bankruptcy proceeding, Holland’s failure to respond to the court’s order, and the parties’ failure to show that claims remained pending for purposes of the appeal.
Holdings
- Holland's appeal was properly dismissed with prejudice for want of prosecution because Holland failed to respond to the court's August 7, 2024 order.
- MRC's cross-appeal was properly dismissed with prejudice for want of prosecution because MRC sought to nonsuit its claims, did not object to the trial court's findings and conclusions, failed to show that any claims remained pending, and did not request reinstatement.
Questions Presented
- Whether Holland's appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution after Holland failed to respond to the court's August 7, 2024 order.
- Whether MRC's cross-appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution where MRC sought to nonsuit its claims, failed to challenge the trial court's findings and conclusions, and failed to show that any claims remained pending.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (2)
- MRC Permian Co. v. Point Energy Partners Permian LLC, 624 S.W.3d 643 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021)(background)
- Point Energy Partners Permian, LLC v. MRC Permian Co., 669 S.W.3d 796, 800 (Tex. 2023)(background)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…