Court Opinion

ID: 9387304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-17 16:07:37.180363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:12.711236
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued April 11, 2023

                                     In The

                              Court of Appeals
                                     For The

                          First District of Texas
                           ————————————
                              NO. 01-22-00609-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 151st District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                      Trial Court Case No. 2020-52300

                         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 22, 2022 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 the
supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law,” and (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.

Appellants’ brief was therefore originally due on or before November 16, 2022. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a), (d). However, no brief was filed.

      On November 21, 2022, 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 dismissal unless a brief, or motion to extend

time to file a brief, was filed within ten days of the notice. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant to file brief), 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary

dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution), 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’

                                           2
brief, which was granted by the Court. With this 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 was filed

within ten days of the date of the notice. Despite the February 14, 2023 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a).

      Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion and dismiss this appeal for want of

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. 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.

                                          3