Opinion
No. 05-10-01489-CV
Opinion Filed April 11, 2011.
On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 09-05770.
Before Justices MURPHY, FILLMORE, and MYERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Preferred Communication Systems, Inc. and Charles M. Austin appeal a default judgment. Austin filed the notice of appeal on his behalf and on behalf of Preferred Communication. By letter dated January 20, 2011, we explained to Austin and Preferred Communication that a corporation may only appear through an attorney. See Kunstoplast of Am., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam). Because our records do not reflect Austin is an attorney, we directed Preferred Communication to have counsel file, within twenty days of the date of the letter, an amended notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(f). That deadline fell within five days of the deadline for filing appellants' brief. Neither the amended notice of appeal nor the brief was filed. By letter dated March 2, 2011, we informed Austin that the brief was overdue and directed him to file the brief within ten days. The brief was not filed.
We cautioned in our January and March letters that failure to comply with our directives would result in dismissal of the appeal. See id. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(c). To this date, neither Austin nor Preferred Communication has communicated with the Court or complied with our directives. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See id. 42.3(b), (c).