Court Opinion

ID: 9372245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-20 08:08:32.1564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:33.930890
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
                           FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

                                           ORDER

Appellate case name:        Creative Chateau, LLC v. The City of Houston
Appellate case number:      01-21-00327-CR
Trial court case number:    2019-44108
Trial court:                215th District Court of Harris County
       On January 27, 2023, appellant, Creative Chateau, LLC, filed an “Unopposed
Motion to Substitute Counsel,” requesting that Daniel W. Jackson and Daniel Gierut be
permitted to withdraw, and Misty Hataway-Coné be substituted as counsel of record in this
appeal. Because the motion did not comply with the delivery requirements set forth in
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5 in that it did not confirm that Jackson or Gierut, as
the withdrawing attorneys, “delivered [the motion] to [appellant] in person or [by] mail[],”
see TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(b), (d), this Court denied the motion on February 2, 2023. The
Court stated that nothing in its order prevented appellant from filing a renewed request for
substitution of counsel in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellant Procedure.
        On February 9, 2023, appellant filed a second “Unopposed Motion to Substitute
Counsel,” requesting that Daniel W. Jackson and Daniel Gierut be permitted to withdraw,
and Misty Hataway-Coné be substituted as counsel of record in this appeal. The motion
states that appellant “approves this substitution and designation” and “[a] copy of this
Motion has been provided to Appellant, Creative Chateau, LLC.” We note that appellant’s
second motion also does not confirm that Jackson and Gierut, as “the withdrawing
attorney[s],” complied with the delivery requirements set forth in rule 6.5. Specifically, the
motion does not confirm that Jackson or Gierut “delivered [the motion] to [appellant] in
person or [by] mail[].” See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(b) (emphasis added). The motion therefore
fails to strictly comply with the requirements of rule 6.5.
        The deadline for appellant to file a motion for rehearing from the Court’s January
12, 2023 judgment was January 27, 2023. Appellant filed a motion for extension of time
to file its motion for rehearing on January 27, 2023, and this Court granted the motion
extending the deadline to February 10, 2023. Appellant, through Misty Hataway-Coné,
filed its motion for rehearing on February 10, 2023. Counsel filed the motion for rehearing
on behalf of appellant prior to her substitution as counsel of record for appellant being
approved by this Court.
       Because appellant’s second unopposed motion for substitution of counsel confirms
that a copy of the motion was “provided” to appellant, and to avoid the expense and
necessity of filing a second motion for an extension of time and third motion for
substitution of counsel, this Court grants appellant’s second unopposed motion for
substitution of counsel.
      It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ______/s/ Amparo Guerra_______
                    Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___February 16, 2023____