Corey Steele v. UG National ( 2019 )

DISMISS and Opinion Filed September 10, 2019
Court of Appeals
S In The
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-01060-CV
COREY STEELE, Appellant
V.
UNICON GROUP, LLC D/B/A UG CONTRACTING AND
CY ADDISON HOSPITALITY PARTNERS, LLC, Appellees
On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-07861
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Nowell
Opinion by Chief Justice Burns
On August 30, 2019, appellant filed his pro se notice of appeal. Appellant appeals from
the temporary injunction signed by the trial court on July 10, 2019.1
An appeal from an interlocutory order granting a motion for a temporary injunction is
accelerated and must be filed within twenty days or, with an extension motion, thirty-five days,
after the order is signed. See TEX. RS. APP. P. 26.1(b), 26.3, 28.1(a). Without a timely filed notice
of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction. See id. 25.1(b).
The notice of appeal was due July 30, 2019, twenty days after the date the temporary
injunction was signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b). Appellant filed his notice of appeal thirty-one
1
In the notice of appeal, appellant lists four orders he is appealing. Only the order granting the temporary injunction is subject to interlocutory
appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(4).
days late. Recognizing that his notice of appeal was untimely, appellant requests in his notice of
appeal that we accept his “Federal Filing Complaint and Request for Injunction” filed in both the
trial court and in federal court on July 12, 2019 as his “original notice of intent to appeal.” He
explains that “he was unaware that you could appeal an interlocutory order, and has only recently
been able to do the research required to prepare this filing and apologizes for its untimely nature.”
We hold pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply
with applicable laws and rules of procedure. See In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d 211, 211–12 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (citing Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex.
1978)). To do otherwise would give a pro se litigant an unfair advantage over a litigant who is
represented by counsel. Id. at 212.
An appeal is perfected, and jurisdiction is conferred upon an appellate court, if the
instrument seeking review of the lower court’s order or judgment was filed in a bona fide attempt
to invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction. See Warwick Towers Council of Co–Owners v. Park
Warwick, L.P., 244 S.W.3d 838, 839 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam). In the federal complaint, appellant
seeks relief from the federal court, not review from this Court. Moreover, at the time the federal
complaint was filed, appellant was unaware he could appeal. For these reasons, we cannot construe
that document as a timely notice of appeal.
Because appellant failed to timely file his notice of appeal, we dismiss this appeal and the
pending motion for emergency stay for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42 .3(a).
/Robert D. Burns, III/
ROBERT D. BURNS, III
191060F.P05 CHIEF JUSTICE
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
COREY STEELE, Appellant On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-19-01060-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-07861.
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns.
UNICON GROUP, LLC D/B/A UG Justices Molberg and Nowell participating.
CONTRACTING AND CY ADDISON
HOSPITALITY PARTNERS, LLC,
Appellees
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
Judgment entered September 10, 2019
–3–