Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015

Oryon Technologies, Inc. and Oryon Technologies, LLC v. M. Richard Marcus

Court of Appeals of Texas · Decided November 10, 2015

Opinion

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 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

<ttnurt nf AppeaLs lJriftlT ilistrid nf Wcxas at ilallas

JUDGMENT

ORYON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District ORYON TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Court, Dallas County, Texas Appellants Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-0 1252.

Opinion delivered by Justice Evans. Justices No. 05-14-00446-CV v. Lang and Whitehill participating. M. RICHARD MARCUS, Appellee

In accordance with this Court's opinion ofthis date, the appeal is DISMISSED. It is ORDERED that appellee M. RICHARD MARCUS recover his costs of this appeal from appellants OR YON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND OR YON TECHNOLOGIES, LLC.

Judgment entered this 1Oth day of November, 2015.

~·~!l -·TI~=>~;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 ·:

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. 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

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.