Court Opinion

ID: 9941835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-17 18:11:55.585005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:10.865753
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-24-00076-CV

                                COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                        CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

KILL BUCH PLATINUM, LLC
D/B/A PLATINUM AUTO GROUP,                                                          Appellant,

                                                    v.

CRAIG POTTS,                                                                          Appellee.

                 On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
                           of Travis County, Texas.

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION

                   Before Justices Longoria, Silva, and Peña
                   Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

       This cause is before the Court on appellee’s motion to dismiss for want of

jurisdiction. 1 We now dismiss the matter for want of jurisdiction.

       1
          This case is before the Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket
equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
       On October 25, 2023, the trial court entered a default judgment in this matter. On

December 8, 2023, an email was sent to the trial court indicating appellant desired to

appeal the judgment. The email appears to be from Danny Bucher, who is not currently

a licensed attorney in the State of Texas.

       On January 17, 2024, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the appeal has

not been timely perfected, so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be

done. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the

date of the Court’s letter, the appeal would be dismissed. The Clerk of the Court also

notified appellant that it appears they are unrepresented by an attorney and that only a

licensed attorney may appear and represent a corporation in litigation. See Kunstoplast

of Am. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA, 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996). Appellant was

instructed to explain who has legal authority to act on behalf of appellant by January 26,

2024. Appellant has failed to respond to either notice.

       The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and

appellant’s failure to timely perfect his appeal, is of the opinion that the appeal should be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed for want of

jurisdiction and appellee’s motion is dismissed as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c).

                                                                NORA L. LONGORIA
                                                                Justice

Delivered and filed on the
15th day of February, 2024.

                                             2