Carrol E. Knight v. Leona Deal

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-06-00214-CV Carrol E. Knight, Appellant v. Leona Deal, Appellee From the 278th District Court Madison County, Texas Trial Court No. 05-10687-278-10 MEMORANDUM Opinion Carrol E. Knight noted in his docketing statement filed on August 8, 2006, that this appeal may be appropriate for mediation, a form of alternative dispute resolution. We agreed and abated the appeal for mediation on August 30, 2006. The Court was notified in mid-September that a mediator had been selected and the appeal would be mediated “within the next couple of weeks.” By October 26, 2006, we had not been informed whether the appeal had been mediated. The Clerk of the Court notified Knight by letter that a status report must be provided within 14 days or the appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution. On October 31, the Court was notified that mediation had been scheduled for the same date but was cancelled due to Knight’s counsel’s schedule and had been rescheduled for December 14, 2006. We have not been informed as to the status of the December 14 mediation. The Clerk has again notified Knight by letter that a status report must be provided within 14 days or the appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution. Fourteen days have passed, and Knight has not responded to the Clerk’s letter. This appeal is reinstated and dismissed for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Vance, and Justice Reyna (Justice Vance dissents with a note)* Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed February 14, 2007 [CV06] * (Dissenting note by Justice Vance: “I believe that, for due process reasons, a failure to respond to the request would not be grounds to dismiss the appeal. See Olivarez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 59, 61 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, no pet.) (concurring note by Vance, J.). Nothing that has occurred (or not occurred) suggests that Knight’s appeal lacks merit. Nor have we attempted to determine whether the conduct for which this sanction is levied is attributable to counsel only, or to the party only, or to both.”)