What does this decision mean?

The appellate court ended the appeal because the appellants did not file their brief or respond to the court's dismissal warning, so the court will not consider the merits of the appeal.

Who is affected by this ruling?

The appellants (WC 4th and Colorado, LP and WC 4th and Rio Grande, LP) lose their opportunity to pursue this appeal; the appellees retain the trial-court outcome subject to any other legal remedies available.

What happens to motions that were pending in the appeal?

The opinion states that any pending motions are dismissed as moot because the appeal itself was dismissed.

Can this dismissal be appealed or undone?

A dismissal for want of prosecution is a final appellate disposition; reopening or reinstating the appeal would typically require a successful motion for reinstatement or other extraordinary relief, which must be pursued promptly and may have strict procedural requirements.

WC 4th and Colorado, LP and WC 4th and Rio Grande, LP v. Seth Kretzer Individually and Receiver for World Class Capital Group, LLC and Great Value Storage, LLC and the Law Offices of Kretzer & Volberding, P.C.

Docket 01-25-00692-CV

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilDismissed

Filed: Apr 21, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: 01-25-00692-CV

Appeal from the 165th District Court, Harris County (trial court case no. 2021-77945), dismissed for want of prosecution.

Summary

The First District of Texas dismissed an appeal by WC 4th and Colorado, LP and WC 4th and Rio Grande, LP for want of prosecution after the appellants failed to file their brief by the extended deadline and did not respond to the court's notice. The court explained the brief was originally due October 27, 2025, an extension to December 1, 2025 was granted, and the appellants failed to file a brief or request a further extension. Because of that failure and no response to a December 11, 2025 dismissal notice, the court dismissed the appeal and denied as moot any pending motions.

Issue Decided

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution under the appellate rules when appellants fail to file a brief after an extension and do not respond to a court notice.

Court's Reasoning

The court applied the appellate rules that permit dismissal when appellants fail to prosecute their appeal. The appellants missed the original brief deadline, received an extension to December 1, 2025, and then took no further action. After issuing a notice that dismissal might follow and giving a further deadline, the court received no response, justifying dismissal. Because the appeal was dismissed for procedural failure, any pending motions became moot.

Authorities Cited

Texas Rules of Appellate ProcedureTEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), 43.2(f)

Parties

Appellant: WC 4th and Colorado, LP
Appellant: WC 4th and Rio Grande, LP
Appellee: Seth Kretzer, individually and as receiver for World Class Capital Group, LLC and Great Value Storage, LLC
Appellee: The Law Offices of Kretzer & Volberding, P.C.
Judge: Chief Justice Adams
Judge: Justice Guerra
Judge: Justice Guiney

Key Dates

Original brief due date: 2025-10-27
Extension granted until: 2025-12-01
Court notice of possible dismissal issued: 2025-12-11
Final deadline in notice to avoid dismissal: 2025-12-22
Opinion issued / dismissal date: 2026-04-21

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult appellate counsel immediately
Affected parties should contact an appellate attorney right away to evaluate whether a motion to reinstate or other relief is possible and to assess any deadlines or extraordinary remedies.
2
Evaluate grounds for relief
If appellants believe there was good cause for missing deadlines, they should gather evidence (e.g., correspondence, proof of excusable neglect) to support a motion to reinstate or for other post-dismissal relief.
3
Confirm status of trial-court judgment
Parties should determine whether the trial-court judgment is now final and whether any trial-court or separate statutory post-judgment remedies remain available.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does this decision mean?: The appellate court ended the appeal because the appellants did not file their brief or respond to the court's dismissal warning, so the court will not consider the merits of the appeal.
Who is affected by this ruling?: The appellants (WC 4th and Colorado, LP and WC 4th and Rio Grande, LP) lose their opportunity to pursue this appeal; the appellees retain the trial-court outcome subject to any other legal remedies available.
What happens to motions that were pending in the appeal?: The opinion states that any pending motions are dismissed as moot because the appeal itself was dismissed.
Can this dismissal be appealed or undone?: A dismissal for want of prosecution is a final appellate disposition; reopening or reinstating the appeal would typically require a successful motion for reinstatement or other extraordinary relief, which must be pursued promptly and may have strict procedural requirements.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Opinion issued April 21, 2026




                                     In The

                              Court of Appeals
                                     For The

                          First District of Texas
                            ————————————
                              NO. 01-25-00692-CV
                           ———————————
 WC 4TH AND COLORADO, LP AND WC 4TH AND RIO GRANDE, LP,
                       Appellants
                                        V.
 SETH KRETZER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS RECEIVER FOR WORLD
 CLASS CAPITAL GROUP, LLC AND GREAT VALUE STORAGE, LLC,
   AND THE LAW OFFICES OF KRETZER & VOLBERDING, P.C.,
                         Appellees


                   On Appeal from the 165th District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                      Trial Court Case No. 2021-77945


                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellants’ brief was originally due on October 27, 2025. Appellants filed a

motion for extension, which was granted until December 1, 2025. No brief or further
motion for extension was filed. On December 11, 2025, the Court issued a notice

that the appeal might be dismissed for want of prosecution unless appellants filed a

brief or a motion for extension by December 22, 2025. Appellant filed no response

to the notice.

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

P. 42.3(b), 43.2(f). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

                                 PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Guiney.




                                         2