Case Name: Timothy E. COOK and Kay F. Cook, Individually and d/b/a Associated Transcription Services, Appellants, v. LERNOUT & HAUSPIE MEDICAL SERVICES DIVISION and E-Docs Health Care Information Services, Inc., Appellees
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 2002-04-24
Citations: 76 S.W.3d 203
Docket Number: No. 10-01-245-CV
Parties: Timothy E. COOK and Kay F. Cook, Individually and d/b/a Associated Transcription Services, Appellants, v. LERNOUT & HAUSPIE MEDICAL SERVICES DIVISION and E-Docs Health Care Information Services, Inc., Appellees.
Judges: Before Chief Justice DAVIS, Justice VANCE, and Justice GRAY.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 76
Pages: 203–203

Head Matter:
Timothy E. COOK and Kay F. Cook, Individually and d/b/a Associated Transcription Services, Appellants, v. LERNOUT & HAUSPIE MEDICAL SERVICES DIVISION and E-Docs Health Care Information Services, Inc., Appellees.
No. 10-01-245-CV.
Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.
April 24, 2002.
Wayne E. Revack, Houston, for appellants.
Nicole Perdue, Neil G. Martin, Gardere, Wynne & Sewell, L.L.P., Houston, for ap-pellees
Before Chief Justice DAVIS, Justice VANCE, and Justice GRAY.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Appellees filed suit against Appellants after Appellants left their employ and began a competing business. The trial court signed a final judgment in Appellees' favor on July 24, 2001, and Appellants filed a timely appeal. The trial court signed an order on August 8 granting a new trial. This Court issued an order on March 6, 2002, advising the parties that this appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction "if a supplemental record containing a final judgment [wa]s not filed with the clerk of this court on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 29, 2002." Cook v. Lernout & Hauspie Med. Servs. Div., 68 S.W.3d 285, 286 (Tex.App.-Waco 2002, order) (citing TexRApp. P. 42.3; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.2001)).
We have received no supplemental record containing a final judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.