Phillip R. Totonelly v. Gregg M. Rosenberg, Individually and d/b/a Gregg M. Rosenberg & Associates, and Gregg M. Rosenberg & Associates--Appeal from Co Civil Ct at Law No 1 of Harris County

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 8, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-00208-CV

____________

PHILLIP R. TOTONELLY, Appellant

V.

GREGG M. ROSENBERG, Individually and d/b/a GREGG M. ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, and GREGG M. ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 798,560

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant filed his notice of appeal on February 14, 2005, from the trial court=s order of dismissal signed January 13, 2005. The clerk=s record was filed April 5, 2005. The record contains the trial court=s dismissal order signed January 13, 2005, and it also contains another copy of the dismissal order bearing the notation ADismissal Order signed 1-13-05 is set aside.@ The order also bears a stamp stating AHereby Ordered and Approved on Feb. 10, 2005,@ which appears to be signed by the trial judge. Accordingly, it appears to this court that the appeal had been rendered moot by the order vacating the dismissal order.

On April 19, 2005, this court notified the parties that the court would consider dismissal of the appeal as moot unless the parties could establish grounds for retaining the appeal. Appellant responded that the record was unclear because it contains another signed copy of the dismissal order, which appears to have been filed after the order bearing the notation that the dismissal had been vacated. Appellant requested this court to refer the matter to the trial court for clarification. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.6. We granted the request, and on May 19, 2005, we abated the appeal to permit appellant to clarify that the appeal had been rendered moot. Supplementation of our record was due on or before June 20, 2005. To date, appellant has not requested additional time to obtain supplementation and no supplementation has been filed.

On November 3, 2005, notification was transmitted to all parties of the Court=s intention to dismiss the appeal unless the parties established grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. No response has been filed.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed December 8, 2005.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Yates and Anderson.