Fuel 2 Go, LLC v. Mesa Fortune, Inc., D/B/A Mesa Food Mart

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 2, 2022
Docket01-21-00546-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Fuel 2 Go, LLC v. Mesa Fortune, Inc., D/B/A Mesa Food Mart (Fuel 2 Go, LLC v. Mesa Fortune, Inc., D/B/A Mesa Food Mart) 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.

Bluebook
Fuel 2 Go, LLC v. Mesa Fortune, Inc., D/B/A Mesa Food Mart, (Tex. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Fuel 2 Go, LLC v. Mesa Fortune, Inc., d/b/a Mesa Food Mart

Appellate case number: 01-21-00546-CV

Trial court case number: 2021-51843

Trial court: 270th District Court of Harris County

In December 2021, counsel for appellant D & R USA Enterprise, Inc. (D & R) filed a motion for extension of time to file its brief and a motion to withdraw. On December 30, 2021, this Court issued an order granting the motion for extension until February 10, 2022 and ordering D & R to advise this Court when it had retained new counsel because a corporation may not represent itself pro se. No notice of appearance or other notice was filed by D & R advising this Court of the retention of new counsel. The Clerk of this Court sent a notice of past due brief to D & R on February 15, 2022. On February 23, 2022, D & R filed a motion for extension. This motion was filed by counsel for Fuel 2 Go, LLC, who signed the motion as counsel for D & R. However, counsel also stated that as a corporation D & R must be represented by counsel and requested that we grant an extension so that “new counsel” may prepare a brief. Thus, although counsel signed the motion as counsel for D & R, the text of the motion appears contradictory to his claim of representation of D & R. Then, on March 21, 2022, the notice of late brief to D & R was returned as non-deliverable. Thus, the Court requires clarification. If D & R has retained Azhar M. Chaudhary as its counsel, a notice of appearance of counsel for D & R must be filed explaining that Chaudhary, who is counsel for Fuel 2 Go, is also now appearing as counsel for D & R. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 6.1(c) (to designate new lead counsel, counsel should file a notice of appearance). This notice shall be filed within 10 days of the date of this order. Furthermore, given the confusion concerning the parties involved in this case, the Court directs counsel Azhar M. Chaudhary to file the required docketing statement (form available on First Court of Appeals website) setting out the parties who are appellants and appellees so that the Court is able to discern the posture of the various parties. The fully-completed docketing statement shall be filed within 10 days of the date of this order. It is so ORDERED. Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Richard Hightower_______  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___June 2, 2022____

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Fuel 2 Go, LLC v. Mesa Fortune, Inc., D/B/A Mesa Food Mart, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuel-2-go-llc-v-mesa-fortune-inc-dba-mesa-food-mart-texapp-2022.