Full Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-26-00055-CV BLACK GOLD TEXAS TEA OIL, LLC, ANTONIO SERNA, Appellants V. PETROSUR, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 284th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Court No. 24-05-07505 Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef MEMORANDUM OPINION On June 9, 2026, this Court issued a memorandum opinion dismissing Appellants, Black Gold Texas Tea Oil, LLC and Antonio Serna’s, appeal1 for want of prosecution due to their failure to ensure that the Montgomery County, Texas, District Court Clerk’s record2 was filed in a timely manner. On June 15, 2026, Appellants filed a motion for rehearing, to withdraw dismissal, and to reinstate appeal, which this Court denied on June 23, 2026. On July 7, 2026, Appellants filed a “Motion for Panel Rehearing of Order Denying Motion to Reinstate Appeal and, Alternatively, Motion for En Banc Reconsideration,” which we construed as a basic motion for rehearing of our June 23 order denying Appellants’ motion to reinstate. On July 13, 2026, this Court requested Appellee, Petrosur, LLC, to respond to Appellants’ July 7 motion for rehearing within ten days. Appellee did not file a response. After considering Appellants’ July 7 motion for rehearing and noting that Appellee did not file a response to their motion, the Court granted Appellants’ motion, withdrew its judgment and memorandum opinion dismissing Appellants’ appeal for want of prosecution, and reinstated their appeal on the Court’s docket. Again, we informed Appellants that they were responsible for paying for, or making adequate arrangements to pay for, the preparation of the clerk’s record, 1 Originally appealed to the Ninth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (Supp.). We are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Ninth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. 2 Likewise, on June 9, 2026, Appellants had not paid, or made arrangements to pay, the court reporter for the preparation of the court reporter’s record, which was also a potential basis for dismissal of their appeal. To date, Appellants still have not done so. 2 and gave them up to and including August 17, 2026, to do so. The Court also ordered that the clerk’s record be filed on or before September 17, 2026. On September 17, 2026, the district clerk informed the Court that Appellants had still not paid for, or made arrangements to pay for, the preparation of the clerk’s record, and, as a result, she was unable to file the record by the September 17 deadline. Consequently, this appeal is ripe for dismissal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), (c); 42.3(b). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. Charles van Cleef Justice Date Submitted: September 23, 2026 Date Decided: September 24, 2026 3