829 Yale Holdings. Inc. D/B/A Steadfast 829 Yale Holdings, Inc. 829 Yale Holdings. Inc. D/B/A Steadfast 829 Yale Holdings, Inc. v. 2017 Yale Development, LLC, Nicholas Fugedi, 2017 Yale Developement GP, LLC, D&A Alvarez Group, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 8, 2025
• Docket: 01-23-00761-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued April 8, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00761-CV ——————————— 829 YALE HOLDINGS INC. D/B/A STEADFAST 829 YALE HOLDINGS, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee V. 2017 YALE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, NICHOLAS FUGEDI, 2017 YALE DEVELOPMENT GP, LLC, D&A ALVAREZ GROUP, LLC, Appellees/Cross-Appellants

On Appeal from the 190th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2019-51432

MEMORANDUM OPINION

829 Yale Holdings Inc., doing business as Steadfast 829 Yale Holdings, Inc.

(“Steadfast”), appeals from the trial court’s final order of dismissal signed on October 6, 2023. Steadfast has not timely filed an appellant’s brief. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.6(a), 38.8(a).

Steadfast’s brief was first due on February 2, 2024. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.6(a). Subsequently, the Court granted Steadfast four extensions of time to file a

brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d).

On December 13, 2024, 2017 Yale Development, LLC filed a motion to

dismiss the appeal based, in part, on Steadfast’s failure to file a brief.1

On December 18, 2024, the Court notified Steadfast that this appeal was

subject to dismissal for its failure to file an appellant’s brief. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(a)(1). An appellee’s brief has not been filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(3).

Steadfast did not respond to the motion to dismiss or to the Court’s notice.

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b)–

(c), 43.2(f). We also dismiss the conditional cross-appeal of the February 7, 2020

order disqualifying a previous trial court judge. We dismiss any other pending

motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

1 In its motion to dismiss, Yale contends that Steadfast’s appeal is “frivolous for the reasons stated in the prior appeal.” It requests “cost[s] from [Steadfast’s counsel] for pursuit of a frivolous appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 45; Smith v. Brown, 51 S.W.3d 376, 381 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. denied). The decision to grant appellate sanctions is a matter of discretion that an appellate court exercises with prudence and caution. Smith, 51 S.W.3d at 381. We decline to impose sanctions. 2 Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Gunn and Guiney.