NUMBER 13-25-00477-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

TRANSPORTE ESPECIALIZADOS RUIZ SA DE CV, Appellant, v. GUILLERMO CANO, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 370TH DISTRICT COURT OF HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Silva, Peña, and West Memorandum Opinion by Justice West On September 29, 2025, appellant filed a notice of appeal. On October 3, 2025, the Clerk of the Court attempted to notify appellant the notice of appeal did not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.1, 9.5, 25.1(d)(1)–(5), and 25.1(e). See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.1, 9.5, 25.1(d)(1)–(5), 25.1(e). Appellant was further notified that it appeared they were appearing without counsel and that only an attorney may represent a party other than oneself. See Kunstoplast of Am. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA, 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996). Appellant was provided thirty days to cure the defects in the notice of appeal and was instructed to obtain counsel and have counsel file an appearance in the matter on or before October 14, 2025. Appellant has failed to cure the defects, failed to respond, and otherwise have failed to avail themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3 permits an appellate court, on its own initiative after giving ten days’ notice to all parties, to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution or for failure to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). We are of the opinion that appellant has both failed to cure the defect and failed to obtain counsel as instructed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. JON WEST Justice

Delivered and filed on the 4th day of December, 2025.