COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON ORDER Appellate case name: Creative Chateau, LLC v. The City of Houston Appellate case number: 01-21-00327-CR Trial court case number: 2019-44108 Trial court: 215th District Court of Harris County On January 27, 2023, appellant, Creative Chateau, LLC, filed an “Unopposed Motion to Substitute Counsel,” requesting that Daniel W. Jackson and Daniel Gierut be permitted to withdraw, and Misty Hataway-Coné be substituted as counsel of record in this appeal. Because the motion did not comply with the delivery requirements set forth in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5 in that it did not confirm that Jackson or Gierut, as the withdrawing attorneys, “delivered [the motion] to [appellant] in person or [by] mail[],” see TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(b), (d), this Court denied the motion on February 2, 2023. The Court stated that nothing in its order prevented appellant from filing a renewed request for substitution of counsel in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellant Procedure.

On February 9, 2023, appellant filed a second “Unopposed Motion to Substitute Counsel,” requesting that Daniel W. Jackson and Daniel Gierut be permitted to withdraw, and Misty Hataway-Coné be substituted as counsel of record in this appeal. The motion states that appellant “approves this substitution and designation” and “[a] copy of this Motion has been provided to Appellant, Creative Chateau, LLC.” We note that appellant’s second motion also does not confirm that Jackson and Gierut, as “the withdrawing attorney[s],” complied with the delivery requirements set forth in rule 6.5. Specifically, the motion does not confirm that Jackson or Gierut “delivered [the motion] to [appellant] in person or [by] mail[].” See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(b) (emphasis added). The motion therefore fails to strictly comply with the requirements of rule 6.5.

The deadline for appellant to file a motion for rehearing from the Court’s January 12, 2023 judgment was January 27, 2023. Appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file its motion for rehearing on January 27, 2023, and this Court granted the motion extending the deadline to February 10, 2023. Appellant, through Misty Hataway-Coné, filed its motion for rehearing on February 10, 2023. Counsel filed the motion for rehearing on behalf of appellant prior to her substitution as counsel of record for appellant being approved by this Court.

Because appellant’s second unopposed motion for substitution of counsel confirms that a copy of the motion was “provided” to appellant, and to avoid the expense and necessity of filing a second motion for an extension of time and third motion for substitution of counsel, this Court grants appellant’s second unopposed motion for substitution of counsel.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ______/s/ Amparo Guerra_______  Acting individually  Acting for the Court Date: ___February 16, 2023____