Opinion
08-24-00100-CV
07-26-2024
LAUNCH STUDIOS, LLC; LAUNCH COMMERCE, LLC; AND JOSEPH RICHARD ROZSA, Appellants, v. HWY 183 2400 LP, Appellee.
Appeal from the 345th District Court of Travis County, Texas (TC# D-1-GN-24-000381)
Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, J.J.
ORDER
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.4 (a) the motion ruled on through this Order may have been decided by a single Justice sitting on the panel.
This order is to address various filings reported as fraudulent, address the status of Launch Studios, LLC and Launch Commerce, LLC (the LLCs) in this appeal, and request a response from Appellant Rozsa to Appellee's motion to dismiss appeal and motion for sanctions.
BACKGROUND
On June 10, 2024, this Court received an Appellants' brief, signed only by Appellant Joseph Richard Rozsa, a non-attorney, but filed on also on behalf of Appellants Launch Studios, LLC and Launch Commerce, LLC (the LLCs). This Court issued an order thereafter, giving the LLCs twenty days-until July 10, 2024-to file an amended notice of appeal and appellate brief complying with the rules for representation of corporate parties or explain how Mr. Rozsa had the legal authority to represent the LLCs, otherwise, the LLCs' claims would be dismissed. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 81.101-102 (prohibiting the practice of law in Texas unless the person is a member of the state bar); Id. §§ 83.001-.006 (prohibiting unlicensed persons from practicing law).
On July 8, 2024, Attorney Jaime D. Pesantes purportedly entered an appearance for the LLCs. On July 8, 2024, Mr. Pesantes's office filed a motion on behalf of the LLCs to adopt the brief previously filed by Mr. Rozsa, which we granted. On July 9, 2024, Mr. Pesantes's office filed two more motions on behalf of all three Appellants: an emergency motion to stay temporary injunction pending appeal and a motion to stay and vacate summary judgment ruling. We requested a response from Appellee to the emergency motion to stay temporary injunction and motion to stay and vacate summary judgment ruling.
Upon learning of the filings from his office in this case, Mr. Pesantes contacted this Court indicating that they were fraudulent. Now before the Court are two motions filed by Mr. Pesantes on July 23, 2024, seeking to withdraw the above filings and withdraw as "counsel of record" for the LLCs, indicating that he had been unaware of the filings and that they were fraudulently effected by his now-former paralegal. Mr. Pesantes asserts that no attorney-client relationship exists between Mr. Pesantes and any of the three appellants. He explains that his former paralegal never had the authority to file any document on his behalf in this case or use his State Bar number to do so.
Mr. Pesantes explained that his former paralegal and Mr. Rozsa are in a relationship, and that he has already filed a police report for the conduct of his paralegal. A police report number is pending.
Also before the Court are Appellee's filings of today's date: a motion to abate filing of appellee's brief, an emergency motion to dismiss appeal and motion for sanctions. The motion to abate, in effect, asks us to stay the due date for Appellee's brief pending our ruling on its emergency motion to dismiss appeal and motion for sanctions.
ORDERS IN RESPONSE TO PENDING MOTIONS
On Mr. Pesantes's representations, which we rely on, as he is an officer of the court, this Court orders the following:
• We GRANT Mr. Pesantes's motion to withdraw the purported emergency motion to stay temporary injunction pending appeal and the purported motion to stay and vacate summary judgment ruling.
• We WITHDRAW our July 9, 2024 notice granting the LLCs' purported motion to adopt Appellant Rozsa's previously filed appellant's brief and GRANT Mr. Pesantes's motion to withdraw the purported motion on behalf of the LLCs' to adopt the brief.
• We GRANT Mr. Pesantes's motion to withdraw as counsel of record in this appeal.
• We GRANT Appellee's motion to abate filing of appellee's brief, which we construe as a motion for extension of time to file a brief, pending further notice from this COURT.
• We ORDER Mr. Rozsa to respond to Appellee's emergency motion to dismiss appeal and motion for sanctions NO LATER THAN AUGUST 5, 2024.
As the LLCs failed to file an amended notice of appeal through an authorized representative within the requisite time, pursuant to this Court's order, their appeal was never perfected. The LLCs will be removed from the style of the case in this Court. Mr. Rozsa remains the sole appellant in his individual capacity.
If Mr. Rozsa fails to respond as ordered by August 5, 2024, this Court will dismiss the appeal. Tex.R.App.P. 42.3 (c) (indicating that the court may dismiss the appeal with regard to parties who fail to comply with a requirement of the court within the specified time).
IT IS SO ORDERED.