Opinion
No. 05-13-01467-CV
02-10-2015
EDWARD CERVANTES, Appellant v. CHEUNG-LOON, LLC, Appellee
On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 08-9267-G
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart
Opinion by Chief Justice Wright
Before the Court is appellee, Cheung-Loon, LLC's January 27, 2015, motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellee contends the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Specifically, appellee contends appellant has failed to file his brief.
This appeal originated when appellants, Edward Cervantes and Cergon, Inc. both appealed a trial court judgment in favor of appellee. By order entered July 17, 2014, we granted appellants' counsel's motion to withdraw. In that order we cautioned Cergon, Inc. that it could only appear in this Court through an attorney and, unless it notified us by August 18, 2014 of new counsel, its appeal would be dismissed. Cergon failed to retain new counsel and its appeal was dismissed on September 9, 2014. In the order dismissing Cergon's appeal, we reiterated that Cervantes' brief was due September 19, 2014.
By order entered September 30, 2014, we cautioned Cervantes that failure to comply with this Court's order to file his brief could result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(c). In that same order, we again ordered Cervantes to file his brief along with an extension motion explaining the reason for the delay in filing the brief no later than October 13, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 38.8(a)(1). To date, Cervantes has not filed the brief or otherwise communicated with the Court. Accordingly, we grant appellee's motion and dismiss the appeal. See id. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(c). 131467F.P05
/Carolyn Wright/
CAROLYN WRIGHT
CHIEF JUSTICE
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 08-9267-G.
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart participating.
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.