Blogger Inc. and Mark Burke v. Andrew P. Lehman

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 28, 2025
• Docket: 01-25-00401-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued August 28, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00401-CV ——————————— BLOGGER INC. AND MARK BURKE, Appellants V. ANDREW LEHMAN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 215th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2025-14896

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, Blogger Inc. and Mark Burke, filed a notice of appeal, purportedly

appealing a May 15, 2025 “Enforcement of Foreign Judgment,” which, according to

appellants, was “backdated as a ‘Final Order’ by the [trial] court” and “dated the

same date as the original petition filed on Mar[ch] 4, 2025” by appellee, Andrew Lehman. Appellants’ notice of appeal was filed by Mark Burke, purportedly acting

both as pro se counsel for himself as an appellant, but also on behalf of Blogger Inc.

The appellate record does not establish that Mark Burke is a licensed attorney.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, want of prosecution, and

appellants’ failure to comply with a requirement of an order of this Court. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (b), (c).

While a non-attorney may perfect an appeal on behalf of a corporate entity,

the non-attorney may not prosecute the appeal. See Kunstoplast of Am. v. Formosa

Plastics Corp., USA, 937 S.W.3d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996); see also Wuxi Taihu Tractor

Co., Ltd. v. York Grp., Inc., No. 01-13-00016-CV, 2014 WL 6792019, at *8–9 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 2, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.); Simmons, Jannace

& Staff, LLP v. Buzbee Law Firm, 324 S.W.3d 833, 833 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th

Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (business entities, as fictional legal persons, cannot represent

themselves). For this reason, on July 22, 2025, the Court ordered appellants to retain

a licensed attorney on behalf of Blogger Inc. and directed any attorney retained to

file a notice of appearance on behalf of Blogger Inc. within ten days of the date of

the order. Appellants were further notified that failure to comply with the order

could result in dismissal of the appeal. Despite notice that the appeal was subject to

dismissal, appellants failed to respond to the Court’s order and the Court’s records

reflect that no licensed attorney has made an appearance on behalf of Blogger Inc.

2 Additionally, this Court generally has jurisdiction only over appeals from final

judgments and specific interlocutory orders that the Legislature has designated as

appealable orders. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447–48 (Tex. 2011);

see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014. The Court’s records do not

reflect that any final judgment or other appealable interlocutory order has been

signed. Appellants’ notice of appeal states that they seek to appeal a May 15, 2025

“Enforcement of Foreign Judgment.” However, the Court’s records do not include

any signed, appealable order or judgment of the trial court from that date or any

other.

For that reason, in our July 22, 2025 order, the Court also ordered appellants

to file a written response, containing citation to the law and record, demonstrating

that this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal, specifically, directing appellants to

identify any signed judgment or other order of the trial court which appellants seek

to appeal. Appellants were directed to file any such response within ten days of the

date of the order and notified that the failure to respond could result in dismissal of

the appeal. Despite the Court’s notice that the appeal was subject to dismissal,

appellants failed to respond to the Court’s order.

Further, on June 5, 2025, appellants filed a notice of election stating that

appellants intended to file an appendix in lieu of a clerk’s record for this appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5a (permitting appellant to file appendix “that replaces the clerk’s

3 record for the appeal”). Where an appellant files a notice of election that an appendix

will be filed in lieu of a clerk’s record, that appellant’s brief is due within thirty days

after the later of: (1) the date appellant filed the notice of election or (2) the date the

reporter’s record is filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5a(b). On June 4, 2025, the official

court reporter for the 215th District Court for Harris County, Texas notified the

Court that no record was taken in the underlying cause, and appellant filed its notice

of election on June 5, 2025. Accordingly, appellants’ brief was due to be filed no

later than July 7, 2025. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5a(b). Despite that, appellants neither

filed a brief nor the appendix in lieu of the clerk’s record.

Accordingly, our July 22, 2025 order further notified appellants that the

appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution unless, within ten days of

the date of the order, appellants filed a brief or a meritorious motion to extend the

brief deadline. Despite the Court’s notice that the appeal was subject to dismissal,

appellants failed to respond to the Court’s July 22, 2025 order.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack or jurisdiction and want of

prosecution and “because the appellant[s] . . . failed to comply with . . . a court

order . . . requiring a response or other action within a specified time.” See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(a), (b), (c), 43.2(f). We dismiss all pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Dokupil.