## In the Court of A ppeals Second Appell ate District of Texa s at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 24

- 00030

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023

- 003805 -2

Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ

. M emorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr 

### Q UIET 

### G ROUP 

### LLC AND 

### K EITH 

### J OHNSON 

### , Appellants

V



### . R EA DY 

### C ABLE 

### , I NC



### . , Appellee2 MEMOR ANDU M OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Pro se A ppellant Keith Joh nson filed a notice of appeal on behalf of himself
and Appellant Quiet Gr oup LLC from the trial court ’s final ju dgment against them. J ohnson , howev er, is not an attorney . A company ma y not appear through a

m ember who is not an attorney. See, e.g. , Kunstoplast of Am., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp.,
USA , 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996) (“Generally a corpo ration may be represented only by a licensed at tor ney
. . . . ”); Sherman v. Bosto n , 486 S.W.3d 88, 95 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. denied) (“Legal entities, such as

. . . a limited liability company, generally may appear in a district or county court only through a licensed attorney.”). O n J anuary 3 0, 2024 , we wrote to John son to explain to him th at he could

no t re present Qui et Group because he i s not an attorney , and we warned him that we could dismiss the appeal unless a licensed attorney fi led a notice of appearance for Quiet Group by F ebr uary 9, 2024

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42 .3(b), (c)

. N o license d attor ney ha s appeared for Qui et Group. 1 Be cause Quiet Group has
failed to o btain counsel as directed by our January 3 0, 20 24 letter, we dismiss i ts

1 On February 8, 2024, we received a letter fr om Johnson asking us for a three

week exten sion to retain counsel. We construed John son ’s letter as an extension motion and notified h im that if he did not submit a certificate of conference and p ay the $10 motion filing fee by March 1, 20 24, we could den y the m otion or return it to hi m unfiled. See Tex. R. A pp. P. 5, 9.5, 10.1(a)(5) ; s ee also Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Bef ore the Judicial Panel on Multi

- District Litiga tio n , Misc. Docket No. 1 5- 9158 (Aug. 28, 20 15) (listing courts of a ppeals ’ fees). A s we have not re ceived either a certificate of conference or the filing fee, we return Johnson ’s motion to him unfiled.3 appeal. S ee Tex. R. App. P. 42.3 (b), (c), 43.2(f) , 4 4.3 ; Col lins Motor Co., L.L.C. v.
Fi rstCapital Bank o f Tex., N.A. , No. 02

- 20

- 00192

- CV, 2020 WL 5047510, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Aug. 27, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) ; Infracon USA, LLC v. Funding
Circle Pa rtners, LP , No. 02

- 19

- 00423

- CV, 2020 WL 719431, at *2 (Tex . App.

— Fort Worth Feb. 13, 2 020, pet. denied) (per c uriam) (mem. op.).

We must dismiss J ohnson ’ s appeal as well. J o hn son ’s brief was due o n May 6 , 2024 , but he did not file one. On May 1 7 , 2024, we notified Johnson that his brief had

no t been filed a s the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App . P. 38.6(a). We stated that we could dismiss the appeal for want of prose cu t ion unless , within ten days, Johnson
filed with th e c ourt a n appellan t ’ s brief and a n accompanying motion reasonably

ex plaining the b rief’ s untimely filing and why an extension wa s needed. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We have re ceiv e d no response.
B ecause Johnson has failed to file a b rief even after we afforded him an opportunity to explain the ini tia l failure, we dismi ss his appeal for wan t of prosecution. See Te x. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f). Quiet Group and Johnson must pay all cost s of this appeal.

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr E lizabeth Kerr Justic e
Delivered: July 3, 2024