Opinion
08-24-00100-CV
06-18-2024
LAUNCH STUDIOS, LLC; LAUNCH COMMERCE, LLC; AND JOSEPH RICHARD ROZSA, Appellants, v. HWY 183 2500 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 Tex.R.App.P. 10.4 (a) the motion ruled on through this Order may have been decided by a single Justice sitting on the panel.
Appellant Joseph Rozsa filed a pro se notice of appeal in the Travis County trial court purporting to represent himself, Launch Studios, LLC, and Launch Commerce, LLC. On June 10, 2024, this Court received an Appellants' brief, signed only by Mr. Rozsa, but seeking relief for Mr. Rozsa, Launch Studios, LLC, and Launch Commerce, LLC. The Clerk of this Court rejected the brief for non-compliance because it (1) did not contain an appendix; (2) did not identify the parties and counsel; (3) did not contain a certificate of compliance; and (4) the index of authorities was not in alphabetical order. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1 (providing the requirements for briefs).
This case was transferred from the Third Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 73.001. We follow the precedent of the Third Court of Appeals to the extent it might conflict with our own. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.3.
Mr. Rozsa also filed a combined motion to supplement the record and a motion for extension of time to file appellants' brief. This motion was also rejected by the Clerk because it did not contain a certificate of conference.
The Clerk gave Mr. Rozsa until June 13, 2024 to cure the defects. Mr. Rozsa filed a motion for extension of time to file his brief on June 17, 2024, and then tendered an Appellants' brief on June 18, 2024. The Clerk of this Court rejected that brief because it was not signed by Mr. Rozsa and gave him until June 20, 2024 to cure the defect. Tex.R.App.P. 9.1(b) (requiring unrepresented parties to sign documents submitted for filing). But aside from these technical filing issues, the Court is concerned about a more substantive problem with the Appellants brief as tendered.
After an initial review of the record, it appears that Joseph Rozsa is attempting to represent Appellants Launch Studios, LLC, and Launch Commerce, LLC. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 7 allows a person to represent himself or herself pro se to litigate rights on his or her own behalf- not to litigate rights of others in a representative capacity. Tex.R.Civ.P. 7; Lorie Bernice Sharpe Trust v. Troy Phung, 622 S.W.3d 929, 929 (Tex. App.-Austin 2021, no pet) (mem. op.) (citing Kunstoplast of Am. Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA, 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996)). Under Texas Law, only a licensed attorney may represent other parties. Tex. Gov't Code. Ann §§ 81.101- .102 (prohibiting 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).
The Texas Supreme Court transferred this appeal from our sister court in Austin, Texas, and we decide this case in accordance with any precedent of that court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 73.001 (authorizing transfer of cases); Tex.R.App.P. 41.3 (precedent in transferred cases). The Austin Court of Appeals sua sponte raises the issue of improper representation of a corporate entity by a pro se individual, and we do so here. See e.g., Lorie Bernice Sharpe Trust, 622 S.W.3d at 929 (pro se representation by trustee).
Appellants Launch Studios, LLC, and Launch Commerce, LLC are hereby ORDERED to either file an amended notice of appeal and an amended appellate brief that comply with the rules for representation of corporate parties, or Joseph Rozsa must file a response to this order that explains how he has the legal authority to sign a pleading on behalf of the corporate parties. Either filing must be made within twenty days of the date of this order. If no amended notice and brief are filed, or no response that explains how Joseph Rozsa is legal entitled to represent the corporate entities, this court will dismiss the corporate claims of Launch Studios, LLC, and Launch Commerce, LLC in accordance with the precedent of the Austin Court of Appeals. See 1 Fox 2 Prods., LLC v. Mercedes-Benz UAS, LLC, No. 03-20-00101-CV, 2021 WL 81865, at *4 (Tex. App.-Austin Jan 7, 2021, no pet.) (dismissing corporate appellant's issues raised in brief because the LLC's owner could not represent entities without a license to practice law). Mr. Rozsa will remain a party to the appeal in his individual capacity.
IT IS SO ORDERED