Rush Trucking Centers of Texas, L.P. v. Ronald Joe Andrus, Jr.

Opinion filed April 9, 2026




                                    In The


        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                  ___________

                              No. 11-26-00018-CV
                                  ___________

   RUSH TRUCK CENTERS OF TEXAS, L.P., Appellant/Cross-
                     Appellee
                                       V.
       RONALD JOE ANDRUS, JR., Appellee/Cross-Appellant


                     On Appeal from the 104th District Court
                             Taylor County, Texas
                         Trial Court Cause No. 28362-B


                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
       On October 28, 2025, the trial court signed a judgment in favor of
Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Ronald Joe Andrus, Jr., following a jury trial.
Appellant/Cross-Appellee, Rush Truck Centers of Texas, L.P., filed a notice of
appeal and an omnibus motion (1) for new trial, (2) to modify, correct, and reform
the judgment, and (3) for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The trial court
conducted a hearing, granted Rush Truck’s omnibus motion, and signed a take-
nothing judgment in its favor on February 2, 2026. Andrus filed a notice of appeal
from the trial court’s take-nothing judgment, which was filed in this cause because it
relates to the appeal of the trial court’s original judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 27.3.
      Rush Truck has now filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its portion of this
appeal. In the motion, Rush Truck states that its notice of appeal was filed as a
protective measure while its postjudgment motion was still pending. It states that
because the trial court “granted all of [Rush Truck]’s requested relief and entered a
take-nothing judgment, this appeal [is] no longer necessary.”           We agree and
conclude that its motion should be granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).
      On March 5, Andrus attempted to file a “notice of nonsuit” but we did not file
it because it lacked a certificate of conference and Andrus did not pay the required
filing fee. On March 11, because we had not received any correspondence from
Andrus’s attorney, we requested a response from the attorney regarding his desire to
prosecute the appeal, with a March 23 deadline to respond. On March 26, we issued
a letter to the parties reminding Andrus’s attorney that we were attempting to
determine whether Andrus desired to prosecute his portion of the appeal. Andrus’s
attorney has not filed a response or otherwise contacted this court. On March 27,
the district clerk’s office filed a request for an extension of time to file the clerk’s
record, which we granted, because Andrus has not submitted a request for the
preparation or written designation for the clerk’s record, nor has he paid or made
arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(a)(2).
      Given the foregoing, we grant Rush Truck’s motion to dismiss its portion of
the appeal, and we dismiss Andrus’s portion of the appeal for want of prosecution




                                           2
and failure to comply with our directives. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.




                                             W. STACY TROTTER
                                             JUSTICE


April 9, 2026
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.




                                         3