Fred Zaziski and Rozanne Zaziski v. North Texas Acquisitions Goup LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 29, 2025
• Docket: 01-24-00343-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued April 29, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00343-CV ——————————— FRED ZAZISKI AND ROZANNE ZAZISKI, Appellants V. NORTH TEXAS ACQUISITIONS GROUP, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1214593

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, Fred Zaziski and Rozanne Zaziski, through counsel, filed a notice

of appeal from the trial court’s April 25, 2024 final judgment. Appellee, North Texas

Acquisitions Group, LLC, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of

prosecution because appellants have failed to timely file a brief. We grant appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

On May 8, 2024, the official court reporter for the County Civil Court at Law

No. 2 notified the Court that no record was taken in the trial court cause, and the

clerk’s record was filed on July 26, 2024. Appellants’ brief was therefore originally

due on or before August 26, 2024. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a), (d). However, no

brief was filed.

On September 4, 2024, appellants were notified by the Clerk of this Court that

the appeal was subject to dismissal unless a brief, or motion to extend time to file a

brief, was filed within ten days of the notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a) (governing

failure of appellant to file brief), 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of appeal

for want of prosecution), 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case for failure

to comply with order of this Court). On September 13, 2024, appellants filed their

first motion to extend the deadline to file their brief, which was granted by the Court.

With the extension, appellants’ brief was due on or before October 25, 2024.

On October 16, 2024, appellants filed their second motion to extend the

deadline to file their brief, which was granted by the Court. With the extension,

appellants’ brief was due on or before November 25, 2024. However, no brief was

filed. Instead, on November 25, 2024, appellants’ counsel filed a motion to

withdraw as appellate counsel, stating that “professional considerations require[d]

termination of the representation.”

2 The Court granted the motion to withdraw, allowing counsel to withdraw, and

directed appellants to, within thirty days of the date of the Court’s order, file a brief

pro se, or if they hired new counsel, direct such counsel to file a notice of appearance

along with a brief or meritorious motion to extend the deadline for filing a brief. The

Court’s order further notified appellants that failure to comply with the order may

result in dismissal of the appeal. Appellants did not adequately respond to the

Court’s order.

On April 2, 2025, appellee filed its motion to dismiss the appeal for want of

prosecution. Despite the Court’s notice that this appeal was subject to dismissal, and

appellee’s motion requesting dismissal of the appeal, appellants have not adequately

responded. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a).

Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion and dismiss this appeal for want of

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c), 43.2(f). All pending motions are

dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Caughey, and Morgan.