Whole Mobility, Inc. v. George A. Talamas, Individually, and George A. Talamas, Inc., D/B/A Watchtronics and D/B/A Marglo II

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 30, 2025
Docket04-25-00317-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Whole Mobility, Inc. v. George A. Talamas, Individually, and George A. Talamas, Inc., D/B/A Watchtronics and D/B/A Marglo II (Whole Mobility, Inc. v. George A. Talamas, Individually, and George A. Talamas, Inc., D/B/A Watchtronics and D/B/A Marglo II) 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
Whole Mobility, Inc. v. George A. Talamas, Individually, and George A. Talamas, Inc., D/B/A Watchtronics and D/B/A Marglo II, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-25-00317-CV

WHOLE MOBILITY, INC., Appellant

v.

George A. TALAMAS, Individually, and George A. Talamas, Inc., d/b/a Watchtronics and d/b/a Marglo II, Appellees

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2024CVH000055D3 Honorable Rebecca Ramirez Palomo, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Irene Rios, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 30, 2025

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

In this appeal, the clerk’s record was due on June 20, 2025. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.1. On

June 20, 2025, the Webb County District Clerk notified this court that appellant had not paid the

clerk’s fee for preparing the record and that appellant is not entitled to the record free of cost.

On June 26, 2025, we ordered appellant to file written proof by July 11, 2025, that either

(1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements satisfactory to the clerk have been made to pay 04-25-00317-CV

the clerk’s fee, or that appellant is entitled to the clerk’s record without prepayment of such fees

and (2) that a request for the court reporter’s record was made. We warned appellant that if he

failed to respond as ordered, this appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 37.3(b).

To date, appellant has not filed any response with this court. Therefore, we dismiss this

appeal for want of prosecution. See id. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c).

-2-

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Whole Mobility, Inc. v. George A. Talamas, Individually, and George A. Talamas, Inc., D/B/A Watchtronics and D/B/A Marglo II, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whole-mobility-inc-v-george-a-talamas-individually-and-george-a-texapp-2025.