Opinion issued April 11, 2023

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 2 2
- 00 609
- CV

——————————— CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS, CORBY ALEXANDER, RICHARD GLASS,

AND MARK HUBER , Appellants

V. SV SONS HWY 146, LLC , Appellee

On Appeal from the 1 51st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 20 20
- 52300

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellants, the City of La Porte, Texas, Corby Alexander, Richard Glass, and Mark Huber , filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s : (1) May 2 2 , 202 2 final judgment , (2) June 27, 2022 nunc pro tunc judgment, (3) denial of appellants’ post

- judgment motions, (4) “issued findings of fact and conclusions of law and the2

supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law,” an d (5) “all other adverse rulings entered against them related to those judgments, findings, conclusions, and orders, including the underlying summary judgment orders and permanent injunction

. ” Appellee, SV Sons Hwy 146, LLC , filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, arguing that appellants have failed to timely file a brief. We grant appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. The clerk’s record was filed on September 21 , 2022, and the appellate record

was completed on October 15, 2022 when the reporter’s record was filed.
A ppellants’ brief was therefore originally due on or before November 16 , 2022. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 38.6(a), (d). However, no brief was filed. On November 21 , 20 22, appellants filed their first motion to extend the deadline to file their appellants’ brief, which was granted by the Court. With this extension, appellants’ brief was due on or before December 16, 2022. However, no brief was filed. On January 2, 2023, appellants were notified by the Clerk of this Court that this appeal was subject to di smissal unless a brief, or motion to extend time to file a brief, was filed within ten days of the notice. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant to file brief), 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of appeal for want of prosecutio n), 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case for failure to comply with order of this Court). On January 17, 2023, appellants filed their second motion to extend the deadline to file their appellants’3

brief, which was granted by the Court. With th is extension, appellants’ brief was due on or before January 20, 2023. Again , no brief was filed. On February 14, 2023, appellants were notified by the Clerk of this Court that this appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution unless a brief wa s filed within ten days of the date of the notice. Despite the February 1 4 , 202 3 notice that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellants did not adequately respond. Further, more than ten days have passed since appellee’s motion to dismiss was filed , and appellants have not responded. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 10.3(a). Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion and dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX
. R. A PP . P. 42.3(b), (c), 43.2(f). All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justice Hightower, Rivas

- Molloy, and Farris.