William Bush and Mari Marc S.A. De C v. v. Cardtronics, Inc. and Cardtronics S.A. De C v.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 13, 2012
Docket01-12-00708-CV
StatusPublished

This text of William Bush and Mari Marc S.A. De C v. v. Cardtronics, Inc. and Cardtronics S.A. De C v. (William Bush and Mari Marc S.A. De C v. v. Cardtronics, Inc. and Cardtronics S.A. De C v.) 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
William Bush and Mari Marc S.A. De C v. v. Cardtronics, Inc. and Cardtronics S.A. De C v., (Tex. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR TilE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: William Bush and Mari Marc S.A. de C.V.v. Cardtronics, Inc. and Cardtronics S.A. de C.V.

Appellate case number: 01-12-00708-CV

Trial court case number: 1031459

Trial court: 281 st District Court of Harris County

Appellant William Bush, proceeding pro se, has filed a brief signed by himself only, purporting to be on behalf of himself and on behalf of appellant Mari Marc, S.A. de C.V. Bush asserts in the brief that Mari Marc, S.A. de C.V. is a Mexican corporation.

Texas courts have consistently held that a non-attorney may not appear pro se on behalf of a corporation. Corona v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 245 S.W.3d 75, 79 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2008, pet. denied); see Kunstoplast of Am., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA, 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996). A corporation may be represented only by a licensed attorney in the prosecution of its appeal. See Moore v. Elektro-Mobil Technik GmbH, 874 S.W.2d 324, 327 (Tex. App.--E1 Paso 1994, writ denied).

Accordingly, if it desires to prosecute its appeal, Mari Marc, S.A. de C.V. must retain licensed counsel to represent it. Any attorney retained to represent Marl Marc, S.A. de C.V. in this appeal must make an appearance by filing a notice of representation xvith the Clerk of this ,Court by January 4, 2013. If such notice of representation is not filed, Marl Marc, S.A. de C.V. s appeal will be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c); see also MHL Homebuilder LLC v. Dabal/Graphic Resource, No. 14-05-00295-CV, 2005 WL 1404475 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] June 16, 2005, no pet.) (mere. op.). In addition, appellants’ brief filed on November 21, 2012 ~s stricken. Appellant William Bush may file an amended appellant’s brief acting pro se on behalf of himself only. An amended briefing schedule will be set once it is determined whether Mari Marc, S.A. de C.V. will be retaining counsel to represent it in this appeal or whether its appeal will be dismissed.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/Laura C. Higley [] Acting individually [] Acting for the Court

Date: December 13, 2012

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

Related

Corona v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp.
245 S.W.3d 75 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Kunstoplast of America, Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp.
937 S.W.2d 455 (Texas Supreme Court, 1997)
Moore Ex Rel. Moore v. Elektro-Mobil Technik GmbH
874 S.W.2d 324 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
William Bush and Mari Marc S.A. De C v. v. Cardtronics, Inc. and Cardtronics S.A. De C v., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-bush-and-mari-marc-sa-de-c-v-v-cardtronics-texapp-2012.