Court Opinion

ID: 9952567
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 07:17:20.820714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:40:44.442305
License: Public Domain

Dismissed and Opinion Filed March 15, 2024

                                                In The
                                 Court of Appeals
                          Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                       No. 05-23-00891-CV

 METROPLEX REALTY LLC, DALLAS FORT WORTH REAL ESTATE
   GROUP, LLC D/B/A THE AZBELL GROUP, METROPLEX REALTY
 FINANCIAL CORP., AND CARL AZBELL D/B/A THE AZBELL GROUP,
   D/B/A THE BURGESS REAL ESTATE GROUP, D/B/A METROPLEX
  REALTY DALLAS GROUP, D/B/A METROPELX REALTY DALLAS,
      D/B/A METROPLEX REALTY GALVESTON GROUP, D/B/A
 METROPLEX REALTY HOUSTON GROUP, D/B/A RAD HOME TEAM,
                          Appellants
                             V.
                  MADISON SEMLER, Appellee

                   On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court
                                Dallas County, Texas
                        Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-17309

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION
                    Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Smith
                            Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness
        This appeal from a summary judgment order was filed by Carl Azbell, a non-

attorney.1 Because the summary judgment order did not state it disposed of all parties

    1
     Included as appellants in the caption of the notice of appeal were Does 1 through 10. We note the
record reflects Does 1 through 10 were named defendants in appellee’s original petition but were not named
defendants in appellee’s first amended petition, which was appellee’s live pleading. Their omission from
the amended petition had the effect of dismissing them from the suit. See Johnson v. Coca-Cola Co., 727
and claims, and the record reflected it in fact did not, we questioned our jurisdiction

over this appeal. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195, 205 (Tex.

2001) (generally, appeal may only be taken from final judgment, and when judgment

does not follow conventional trial on merits, judgment is final only if it actually

disposes of all parties and claims or states clearly and unequivocally that it finally

disposes of all parties and claims).

        In response to our request for jurisdictional briefing, Mr. Azbell filed a letter

brief, but nothing in the letter brief demonstrates we have jurisdiction over the

appeal.2 Accordingly, on the record before us, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(a); Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d 195, 205.

230891f.p05
                                                          /Robbie Partida-Kipness/
                                                          ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS
                                                          JUSTICE

S.W.2d 756, 758 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Having been dismissed from the underlying
suit, they are not parties to this appeal.
    2
      We note that on September 20, 2023, shortly after the appeal was filed, we ordered the corporate
appellants to file a notice of designation of counsel in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure
6.1(c). See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.1(c). We explained that, because nothing before us reflected Mr. Azbell was
a licensed attorney, he could not represent them. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 81.102 (limiting practice
of law to persons admitted to the state bar and those permitted by supreme court rules); Kunstoplast of Am.,
Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam) (corporation may be
represented in court only by licensed attorney). Although we cautioned that further action in this appeal on
behalf of the corporate appellants could only be taken by a licensed attorney, they failed to obtain counsel,
and the letter brief Mr. Azbell filed was filed not just on his behalf, but their behalf also. In the letter brief,
Mr. Azbell requests additional time to find counsel. Given our disposition of the appeal, we deny the
request.
                                                      –2–
                          Court of Appeals
                   Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                JUDGMENT

METROPLEX REALTY LLC,                      On Appeal from the 160th Judicial
DALLAS FORT WORTH REAL                     District Court, Dallas County, Texas
ESTATE GROUP, LLC D/B/A THE                Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-17309.
AZBELL GROUP, METROPLEX                    Opinion delivered by Justice Partida-
REALTY FINANCIAL CORP.,                    Kipness, Justices Nowell and Smith
AND CARL AZBELL D/B/A THE                  participating.
AZBELL GROUP, D/B/A THE
BURGESS REAL ESTATE
GROUP, D/B/A METROPLEX
REALTY DALLAS GROUP, D/B/A
METROPLEX REALTY DALLAS,
D/B/A METROPLEX REALTY
GALVESTON GROUP, D/B/A
METROPLEX REALTY
HOUSTON GROUP, D/B/A RAD
HOME TEAM, Appellants

No. 05-23-00891-CV        V.

MADISON SEMLER, Appellee

     In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

      We ORDER that appellee Madison Semler recover her costs, if any, of this
appeal from appellants Metroplex Realty LLC, Dallas Fort Worth Real Estate
Group, LLC d/b/a The Azbell Group, Metroplex Realty Financial Corp., and Carl
Azbell d/b/a The Azbell Group, d/b/a The Burgess Real Estate Group, d/b/a
Metroplex Realty Dallas Group, d/b/a Metroplex Realty Dallas, d/b/a Metroplex

                                     –3–
Realty Galveston Group, d/b/a Metroplex Realty Houston Group, d/b/a Rad Home
Team.

Judgment entered this 15th day of March, 2024.

                                      –4–