Islam Trading Corporation and Mohammad S. Islam v. Wichita Falls Kiwanis Trust

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                COURT OF APPEALS

                                                 SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                                                 FORT WORTH

 

 

                                        NO. 2-08-304-CV

 

 

ISLAM TRADING CORPORATION                                          APPELLANTS

AND MOHAMMAD S. ISLAM

 

                                                   V.

 

WICHITA FALLS KIWANIS TRUST                                             APPELLEE

 

                                              ------------

 

             FROM THE 30TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY

 

                                              ------------

 

                                MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

 

                                              ------------


Appellants Islam Trading Corporation and Mohammad S. Islam attempt to appeal from a June 19, 2008 summary judgment in favor of Appellee Wichita Falls Kiwanis Trust.  Appellants= brief was originally due on September 29, 2008.  On that date, Appellants filed a motion for extension of time to file their brief.  This court granted that unopposed motion and ordered the brief due October 6, 2008.  On October 21, 2008, Appellants requested a second extension.  This court granted that extension over Appellee=s objections and ordered the brief due October 27, 2008.  On November 13, 2008, Appellants requested a third extension, stating that they would Anot seek any further extensions.@  This court granted that extension over Appellee=s objections and ordered the brief due December 1, 2008.

On December 18, 2008, Appellee filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution because Appellants had still not filed a brief.  As of this date, Appellants have neither responded to the motion nor filed a brief.  This court is of the opinion that Appellee=s motion should be granted.

Accordingly, the motion is granted, and we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.[2]

PER CURIAM

PANEL:  DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: February 5, 2009



[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

[2]See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).