Carl Nathan Thomas and Stephanie Thomas v. Babylon Capital, LLC
This text of Carl Nathan Thomas and Stephanie Thomas v. Babylon Capital, LLC (Carl Nathan Thomas and Stephanie Thomas v. Babylon Capital, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Opinion issued August 14, 2025
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00382-CV ——————————— CARL NATHAN THOMAS AND STEPHANIE THOMAS, Appellants V. BABYLON CAPITAL, LLC, Appellee
On Appeal from the 61st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2022-68600
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellants, Carl Nathan Thomas and Stephanie Thomas, filed a notice of
appeal from the trial court’s May 12, 2025 final judgment. On June 27, 2025,
appellants filed a “Notice of Dismissal of Appeal.” In this notice, appellants stated
that they “no longer wish[ed] to pursue this appeal, as the underlying case ha[d] been settled by the parties.” Appellants therefore requested that the Court dismiss the
appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a) (permitting voluntary dismissal of appeal on
motion of appellant).
Settlement of a dispute between parties generally results in mootness, which,
in turn, requires dismissal of the entire lawsuit and not merely dismissal of the
appeal, as was requested by appellants. Therefore, on July 15, 2025, the Court issued
an order directing appellants to file either a written response clarifying that only the
appeal is to be dismissed, or to the extent the entire case is to be dismissed, an
amended motion to dismiss complying with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure
42.1(a)(2). See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2) (providing for voluntary dismissal of
appeals by “agreement signed by the parties or their attorneys”). Appellants were
further notified that the failure to respond to the Court’s July 15, 2025 order would
result in dismissal of the appeal for failure to comply with an order of the Court. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
Despite the Court’s notice that the appeal was subject to dismissal, appellants
failed to respond to the Court’s July 15, 2025 order. Accordingly, we dismiss this
appeal “because the appellant[s] ha[ve] failed to comply with . . . a court
order . . . requiring a response or other action within a specified time.” See TEX. R.
APP. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.
2 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Dokupil.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Carl Nathan Thomas and Stephanie Thomas v. Babylon Capital, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carl-nathan-thomas-and-stephanie-thomas-v-babylon-capital-llc-texapp-2025.