universal-technology-and-communications-inc-dba-utcc-incorporated ( 1994 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN







NO. 3-93-616-CV





UNIVERSAL TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATIONS, INC. D/B/A UTCC, INCORPORATED A/K/A UNIVERSAL TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION,

APPELLANTS

vs.





ROBERT C. ALBA D/B/A RCA,

APPELLEE

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 9301165, HONORABLE MARGARET A. COOPER, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

Appellant Universal Technology and Communications, Inc. d/b/a UTCC, Incorporated a/k/a Universal Technology and Communications Corporation ("Universal Technology") appeals from a judgment of the district court of Travis County in favor of appellee Robert C. Alba, d/b/a RCA. The transcript was filed in this Court on November 19, 1993. See Tex. R. App. P. 54(a). We granted Universal Technology's request for an extension of time within which to file its brief and extended the time for filing the brief to March 7, 1994. See Tex. R. App. P. 74(k), (n). Because Universal Technology has not filed its brief, we will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 74(l)(1).

We first address Universal Technology's counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel, filed in the cause on February 22, 1994. On March 8, 1994, the Clerk of this Court notified counsel, by postcard, that the motion did not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7. Specifically, the motion did not notify Universal Technology of any pending deadlines. See Tex. R. App. P. 7. Furthermore, the motion does not clarify to whom the Clerk of this Court should send notices of the Court's orders, opinion, and judgment for Universal Technology. See Tex. R. App. P. 91.

When counsel did not supplement or amend the motion to withdraw, the Clerk of this Court notified him, by letter, to supplement the motion by April 29 with: (1) a showing that he had notified Universal Technology of the pending deadlines and (2) the names and addresses of the person or persons to whom the Clerk should now send notices. To date, counsel has not supplemented the motion as requested. Because the motion does not comply with Rule 7, we overrule the motion to withdraw as counsel. See generally 6 Richard Orsinger, Texas Civil Appellate Practice § 2.13, at 50 (Texas Civil Practice 1992 ed.) (even when employment relationship has ended, attorney of record will remain attorney of record until court permits attorney to withdraw or to substitute counsel).

By the same letter, the Clerk also notified counsel for Universal Technology that its brief was due on March 7 and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution for failure to file a brief unless Universal Technology filed a motion in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 74(l)(1). See Tex. R. App. P. 60(a)(2). To date, Universal Technology has filed neither a brief nor a motion requesting an extension of time within which to file the brief. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 60(a)(2), 74(l)(1); Dickson v. Dickson, 541 S.W.2d 895, 896 (Tex. Civ. App.--Austin 1976, writ dism'd w.o.j.).

Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Kidd and B. A. Smith

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: May 18, 1994

Do Not Publish