Oryon Technologies, Inc. and Oryon Technologies, LLC v. M. Richard Marcus ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • Order entered November 10,2015
    In The
    Ql:ourt of ~peals
    .1'iftb Jlistdtt of t!texas at )Ballas
    No. 05-14-00446-CV
    ORYON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND ORYON TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Appellants
    v.
    M. RICHARD MARCUS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court
    Dallas County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-01252
    ORDER
    Before Justices Lang, Evans and Whitehill
    By order dated April 14, 2014, the Court ordered the trial court's April 10, 2014 "Order
    on Motion for Temporary and Permanent Sealing of Court Records" STAYED pending this
    Court's resolution of appellants' appeal. On May 7, 2014, the Court was advised that appellants
    had filed bankruptcy petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
    Texas. We abated the appeal and administratively closed the case. By order dated September 23,
    2015 we reinstated the appeal following notification that the bankruptcy court had dismissed the
    bankruptcy cases filed by each appellant. By our opinion of this date, we have ordered the
    RECEIVED IN
    SOURT Of ,!\PPEALS, 5th DISI
    o``c 3o zo1s
    USA MATZ
    CLERK, 5th DISTRICT
    appeal dismissed. Accordingly, we VACATE our order dated April 14, 2014 and LIFT the stay
    imposed by our order. We DENY as moot appellee's Motion to Reconsider our order.
    Is/    DAVID EVANS
    JUSTICE
    Dismissed and Opinion Filed November 10, 2015.
    In The
    C!tnurt nf 1\pp.eaLs
    1J1ift1J llistri.ct nf oJ.exas at llallas
    No. 05-14-00446-CV
    ORYON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND ORYON TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Appellants
    v.
    M. RICHARD MARCUS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court
    Dallas County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-01252
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices Lang, Evans, and Whitehill
    Opinion by Justice Evans
    This is an appeal of a temporary and permanent sealing order signed April 10, 2014. 1 On
    September 23, 2015, we granted the motion to withdraw filed by appellants' counsel of record.
    Because appellants are corporations, we advised appellants that they could only appear before
    this Court through an attorney. See Kunstop/ast of Am., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., 
    937 S.W.2d 455
    , 456 (Tex. 1996); Simmons, Jannace & Stagg, L.L.P. v. Buzbee Law Firm, 
    324 S.W.3d 833
    , 833 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.). We ordered appellants to file
    within thirty days of the date of the order, the name, State Bar number, mailing address, email
    address, and telephone number of new counsel. We advised appellants that failure to provide the
    required information within the time specified would result in the dismissal ofthe appeal without
    1
    0n May 7, 2014, the Court was advised that appellants had filed bankruptcy petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
    Northern District of Texas. We abated the appeal and administratively closed the case. By order dated September 23,2015 we reinstated the case
    following notification that the bankruptcy court had dismissed the bankruptcy cases filed by each appellant.
    further notice. To date we have received no response from either appellant_Z Accordingly, we
    dismiss the appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).
    /David W. Evans/
    DAVID EVANS
    140446F.POS                                                                 JUSTICE
    2
    Notice of the Court's order was sent to the domestic address on file with the Court for appellants as well as to two foreign addresses
    provided by appellants' counsel in their motion to withdraw as counsel of record. The copy of the order mailed to the domestic address on file
    with the Court was returned as undeliverable. The Court attempted to contact appellants at the telephone number provided to the Court, but the
    telephone number was invalid. Appellants have failed in their "continuing duty to keep the court and parties apprised of their correct and current
    address" so that the Court may comply with its duty to send notification to the parties in the case. Mitchell v. Mitchell, No. Il-l 0-00 188-CV,
    
    2011 WL 2112759
    , at *1 (Tex. App.-Eastland May 27,2011, no pet.); see also TEX. R. APP. P 6.3
    -2-
    ~;t;````;
    QTourt of .App.eala
    {),]!\ LiL~t`` ·;;. :?':5{~                                                                                 ~tsPOs~
    Ittftq 1.Eltatrtrt of ID.exaa at 13allaa                                                                                                                                       4-                       Ql"
    George L. Allen Sr. Courts Building                                      .L~;·         ih;!f)\/ '115
    /~          r~ *'*:::.f.-
    600 Commerce Street, Suite 200
    Dallas, 1exas 75202
    ~-::; 1'-·1   J2.    ~-                                                                         5-           ·``-
    ~l>lliW PITNEY BOWES
    ,~   'l 7
    •L I"+
    ll
    $ 000.70 5
    CASE: 05-14-00446-CV
    ORYON
    4251 KE           •;: >~I~                       ·., f:-   '""'-
    =·· ·.;_;
    AD DISC
    ~::T~RrJ                    -~o          s_                       :·~, ``   :.·
    \:.~:-:..~H-.-
    UNAB~_-E                    "7"'()       r:\)~;:-~Aj~L.:
    7 50 01. @4 2 3        "' ......
    ::. ,-            75202663:L50                                          J.~·   '"':! "'t
    ..:   .£                 -· f)'~- ·~j
    '7 ..- ~·-·;4ai-:;l-::.~
    - - -!' -- ~ - ~ ~                  !j ~l I I! d~ ~ !d 1; JiH; ~L ~,                 9   ~    ' ;    ~ !l        ·:
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-14-00446-CV

Filed Date: 11/10/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/30/2016