Zhuo Chen, LC-TX Investment, LLC and SL Vision, LLC v. Qian Wu and Lenshome Optic, LLC

Court of Appeals of Texas

Zhuo Chen, LC-TX Investment, LLC and SL Vision, LLC v. Qian Wu and Lenshome Optic, LLC

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided December 31, 2024·No. 01-24-00911-CV·Published

Opinion

Opinion issued December 31, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

that the document forwarded to this Court by the Harris County District Clerk was not intended as a notice of appeal and that no party had appealed the trial court’s underlying judgment. The purported notice of appeal was instead a “brief [to] the trial court discussing whether attorney fees for a potential appeal should be included in the final judgment.” Appellants further stated that the district clerk’s office “apparently concluded . . . that said brief was a notice of appeal on the issue of attorney fees. It was not.”

Accordingly, appellants requested, “[t]o the extent required,” that the Court “dismiss the appeal without prejudice to re-filing while the appeal deadline is still pending.” No other party has filed a notice of appeal, and no opinion has issued. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), (c). Appellant’s motion includes a certificate of conference stating that appellees, Qian Wu and LensHome Optic, LLC, are not opposed to the relief requested in the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a)(2).

Accordingly, the Court grants appellants’ request and dismisses the appeal.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Rivas-Molloy and Gunn.

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

Opinion issued December 31, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

that the document forwarded to this Court by the Harris County District Clerk was not intended as a notice of appeal and that no party had appealed the trial court’s underlying judgment. The purported notice of appeal was instead a “brief [to] the trial court discussing whether attorney fees for a potential appeal should be included in the final judgment.” Appellants further stated that the district clerk’s office “apparently concluded . . . that said brief was a notice of appeal on the issue of attorney fees. It was not.”

Accordingly, appellants requested, “[t]o the extent required,” that the Court “dismiss the appeal without prejudice to re-filing while the appeal deadline is still pending.” No other party has filed a notice of appeal, and no opinion has issued. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), (c). Appellant’s motion includes a certificate of conference stating that appellees, Qian Wu and LensHome Optic, LLC, are not opposed to the relief requested in the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a)(2).

Accordingly, the Court grants appellants’ request and dismisses the appeal.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Rivas-Molloy and Gunn.

Zhuo Chen, LC-TX Investment, LLC and SL Vision, LLC v. Qian Wu and Lenshome Optic, LLC, (Tex. Ct. App. 2024).

Pincite

Zhuo Chen, LC-TX Investment, LLC and SL Vision, LLC v. Qian Wu and Lenshome Optic, LLC (Zhuo Chen, LC-TX Investment, LLC and SL Vision, LLC v. Qian Wu and Lenshome Optic, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.