Tracy Wilburn; Jaylen Wilburn, Laven Wilburn, Almira Jo Mathis; Mikelle Freeman; Marcellus Freeman; Milan Freeman; Myles Freeman and Artistede Rivers v. Centin Ct Texas LLC; Abhinav Gupt

Opinion issued August 14, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-24-00892-CV
———————————
TRACY WILBURN, JAYLEN WILBURN, LAVEN WILBURN, ALMIRA
JO MATHIS, MIKELLE FREEMAN, MARCELLUS FREEMAN, MILAN
MYLES, AND ARTISTEDE RIVERS, Appellants
V.
CETIN CT TEXAS LLC AND ABHINAV GUPT, Appellees

On Appeal from the 400th District Court
Fort Bend County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 19-DCV-263243

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, Tracy Wilburn, Jaylen Wilburn, Laven Wilburn, Almira Jo

Mathis, Mikelle Freeman, Marcellus Freeman, Milan Myles, and Artistede Rivers,

filed a notice of appeal from an order signed by the trial court on October 10, 2024.
Appellants have failed to timely file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a) (governing

time to file brief).

The clerk’s record was filed on December 3, 2024, and on January 3, 2025,

the official court reporter for the 400th District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas

notified the Court that no record was taken in the underlying cause. Accordingly,

appellants’ brief was originally due on February 3, 2025. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.6(a). Appellants requested an extension to file their brief, which was granted by

the Court, extending the deadline for filing their brief to April 3, 2025. Appellants

failed to timely file a brief.

On April 18, 2025, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants that the time for

filing a brief had expired and the appeal was subject to dismissal unless a brief, or a

motion to extend time to file a brief, was filed within ten days of the notice. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant to file brief), 42.3(b)

(allowing involuntary dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution), 42.3(c) (allowing

involuntary dismissal of case for failure to comply with notice from Clerk of Court).

Despite notice that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellants did not adequately

respond.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3(b), (c); 43.2(f). All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

2
PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Dokupil.

3