Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2025

Carl Nathan Thomas and Stephanie Thomas v. Babylon Capital, LLC

Carl Nathan Thomas and Stephanie Thomas v. Babylon Capital, LLC
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided August 14, 2025

Carl Nathan Thomas and Stephanie Thomas v. Babylon Capital, LLC

Opinion

Opinion issued August 14, 2025

In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00382-CV ——————————— CARL NATHAN THOMAS AND STEPHANIE THOMAS, Appellants V. BABYLON CAPITAL, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 61st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2022-68600

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellants, Carl Nathan Thomas and Stephanie Thomas, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s May 12, 2025 final judgment. On June 27, 2025, appellants filed a “Notice of Dismissal of Appeal.” In this notice, appellants stated that they “no longer wish[ed] to pursue this appeal, as the underlying case ha[d] been settled by the parties.” Appellants therefore requested that the Court dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a) (permitting voluntary dismissal of appeal on motion of appellant).

Settlement of a dispute between parties generally results in mootness, which, in turn, requires dismissal of the entire lawsuit and not merely dismissal of the appeal, as was requested by appellants. Therefore, on July 15, 2025, the Court issued an order directing appellants to file either a written response clarifying that only the appeal is to be dismissed, or to the extent the entire case is to be dismissed, an amended motion to dismiss complying with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2). See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2) (providing for voluntary dismissal of appeals by “agreement signed by the parties or their attorneys”). Appellants were further notified that the failure to respond to the Court’s July 15, 2025 order would result in dismissal of the appeal for failure to comply with an order of the Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

Despite the Court’s notice that the appeal was subject to dismissal, appellants failed to respond to the Court’s July 15, 2025 order. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal “because the appellant[s] ha[ve] failed to comply with . . . a court order . . . requiring a response or other action within a specified time.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Dokupil.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.