Opinion
11-24-00225-CV
11-21-2024
GARRETT TRUCKING, LLC, Appellant v. ROSCOE COLLEGIATE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee
On Appeal from the 32nd District Court Nolan County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. T-04518
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
W. STACY TROTTER, JUSTICE.
John Shayne Garrett filed a pro se notice of appeal from the trial court's final judgment against Garrett Trucking, LLC (Garrett Trucking). Garrett Trucking, which Garrett describes as a limited liability company and private member association, was the only defendant in the proceeding below. In the notice of appeal, Garrett designated himself, Christine Ann Garrett, and Garrett Trucking as the appellants in this cause.
Garrett is attempting to represent Garrett Trucking pro se in this appeal and has since filed a "Motion for Summary Judgment" and a "Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings." Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction and for lack of standing contending that (1) Garrett is not licensed to practice law and cannot file pleadings on behalf of Garrett Trucking or Christine Ann Garrett, and (2) neither Garrett nor Christine Ann Garrett have standing to appeal the trial court's judgment because neither was a party in the case below.
In an order dated October 24, 2024, we informed Garrett that Rule 7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure allows a person to proceed pro se only to litigate rights on his own behalf, not to litigate rights in a representative capacity, and that only a licensed attorney may appear and represent other parties in the litigation. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 7; Kunstoplast of Am., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA, 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996) (although corporate officer could perform the "specific ministerial task of depositing cash with a clerk in lieu of a cost bond," a nonlawyer may not represent a corporation in court); Normel Tech, LLC v. Planview Delaware, LLC, No. 03-22-00461-CV, 2022 WL 16646668, at *1 (Tex. App.-Austin Nov. 3, 2022, no pet.) (per curiam order); Kaminetzky v. Newman, No. 01-10-01113-CV, 2011 WL 6938536, at *2 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 29, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 81.101-.102 (West 2023) (a person may not practice law on behalf of another unless that person is a member of the state bar); id. §§ 83.001-.006; Jimison v. Mann, 957 S.W.2d 860, 861 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1997, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).
We ordered Garrett Trucking to obtain counsel and have a licensed attorney file an amended notice of appeal on its behalf before November 14, 2024, and we stated that the failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c). Following the issuance of our order, Garrett filed his "Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings" on behalf of Garrett Trucking and the Garretts.
As of this date, no licensed attorney has filed an amended notice of appeal on behalf of Garrett Trucking, nor has a licensed attorney responded on behalf of Garrett Trucking. Because Garrett cannot represent Garrett Trucking in this appeal and Garrett Trucking has not complied with our directive to obtain and have a licensed attorney file an amended notice of appeal on its behalf, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution and for failure to comply with our order and directives. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c); see also Normel Tech, LLC, 2022 WL 16646668, at *1; Gore v. S. Dall. Fair Park Innercity Cmty. Dev. Corp., No. 05-03-00627-CV, 2003 WL 21197242, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas May 22, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam); see also Olive & Vine v. City Ctr., No. 14-18-01042-CV, 2019 WL 758419, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 21, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam).
We grant Appellee's motion to dismiss in part and deny Garrett's "Motion for Summary Judgment" and his "Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings." Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.