Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 5, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Francisco Ramirez v. DEA Specialties II, L.L.C.

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 13-25-00632-CV
• Nature of Suit: Unknown Civil Case Type.

• Disposition: Dismissed

• Opinion

• Authorities (1)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

Dismissed

Lead Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00632-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

FRANCISCO RAMIREZ, Appellant,

v.

DEA SPECIALTIES II, L.L.C., Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 444TH DISTRICT COURT
OF CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Cron, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca

On November 14, 2025, appellant Francisco Ramirez filed a pro se notice of

appeal regarding a summary judgment rendered in trial court cause number 2023-DCL-

05532 in the 444th District Court of Cameron County, Texas. On November 26, 2025, the

Clerk of the Court requested appellant to pay the $205.00 filing fee for the notice of appeal
within ten days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (“A party who is not excused by statute or these

rules from paying costs must pay—at the time an item is presented for filing—whatever

fees are required by statute or Supreme Court order. The appellate court may enforce

this rule by any order that is just.”); TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 51.207 (delineating the

required fees and costs in an appellate court). On January 12, 2026, the Clerk of the

Court notified appellant that he was delinquent in submitting the filing fee for the appeal

and informed him that the appeal would be dismissed if the filing fee was not paid within

ten days from the date of the notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). To date, appellant has

failed to pay the filing fee for the notice of appeal or otherwise respond to the Clerk’s

notice.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the foregoing events, is of the

opinion that this appeal should be dismissed. Specifically, this Court has the authority to

dismiss an appeal because the appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the

appellate rules, a court order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other

action within a specified time. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c); Smith v. DC Civil Constr., LLC, 521

S.W.3d 75, 76 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, no pet.). Here, appellant has not paid the

appellate filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 51.207. Accordingly,

we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).

YSMAEL D. FONSECA
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
5th day of March, 2026.

2