Joshua Burch v. Planview Delaware, LLC ( 2022 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-22-00461-CV
Normel Tech, LLC and Joshua Burch, Appellants
v.
Planview Delaware, LLC, Appellee
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. C-1-CV-22-000421, THE HONORABLE TODD T. WONG, JUDGE PRESIDING
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Joshua Burch filed a pro se notice of appeal from the trial court’s final default
judgment against him and Normel Tech, LLC, which he describes in the notice of appeal as “my
company,” stating that he is the company’s founder and CEO. After an initial review of the
record, we informed Burch that it appears that he is attempting to represent Normel Tech pro se
but that Rule 7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure allows a person to represent himself pro se
only to litigate rights on his own behalf, not to litigate rights in a representative capacity. Tex. R.
Civ. P. 7; see, e.g., Kaminetzky v. Newman, No. 01-10-01113-CV, 2011 WL 6938536, at *2
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 29, 2011, no pet.) (concluding appellant could not
represent pro se two corporate defendants as assignee of corporations); see also Kunstoplast of
Am., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., U.S.A., 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996) (although
corporate officer could perform “specific ministerial task of depositing cash with a clerk in lieu
of a cost bond,” nonlawyer may not represent corporation in court). We further informed Burch
that because under Texas law, only a licensed attorney is allowed to represent other parties, to
continue its appeal, Normel Tech must obtain counsel for the appeal. See Tex. Gov’t Code §§
81.101-.102 (prohibiting practice of law in Texas unless person is member of state bar); id. §§
83.001-.006 (prohibiting unlicensed persons from practicing law without a license); see also
Jimison v. Mann, 957 S.W.2d 860, 861 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1997, order) (per curiam) (striking
documents filed by layperson having no authority to file them on behalf of another). We
informed Burch that an attorney representing Normel Tech, LLC must file an amended notice of
appeal on or before October 3, 2022, and that failure to do so might result in the dismissal of
Normel Tech from this appeal. To date, Burch has not responded to our request, nor has any
counsel responded on behalf of Normel Tech.
Because Burch cannot represent Normel Tech, and Normel Tech has not complied
with the Court’s directive to obtain counsel and have an attorney file an amended notice of
appeal on its behalf, Normel Tech’s appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution and for failure to
follow this Court’s directive. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c); see also, e.g., Gore v. South
Dallas 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) (dismissing for want of
prosecution and for failure to comply with court’s directive after appellate court directed
appellant to obtain counsel and appellant failed to do so); 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) (following same procedure).
2
The appeal shall continue as to the remaining appellant, Joshua Burch. We have
amended the style of the case to reflect the partial dismissal: Joshua Burch, Appellant
v. Planview Delaware, LLC, Appellee.
It is ordered November 3, 2022.
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Smith
3