Mary Smith D/B/A Upscale Child Development Center v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00204-CV

Mary Smith d/b/a Upscale Child Development Center, Appellant v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-GN-12-001705, HONORABLE GUS J. STRAUSS, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING

ORDER

PER CURIAM On February 20, 2014, we dismissed this appeal for want of prosecution because the appellant, Mary Smith d/b/a Upscale Child Development Center, failed to timely file her brief on the merits. In the interest of justice, we grant appellant’s motion for rehearing and withdraw our February 20, 2014 opinion.

Appellant is ordered to file a brief compliant with Tex. R. App. P. 38.1 no later than August 4, 2014. No further extensions for appellant’s brief will be granted. The appeal will be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution if appellant fails to timely file her brief.

Appellee’s brief is due thirty (30) days after appellant files her brief, unless appellee timely requests an extension. Appellant’s reply brief, if any, is due twenty (20) days after appellee’s brief is filed.

The notice of appeal, which appellant filed pro se, purports to appeal on behalf of Jason Smith d/b/a Upscale Child Development Center. However, Jason Smith did not sign the notice of appeal, and it is therefore ineffective to perfect an appeal on his behalf. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.1(b) (“A party not represented by counsel must sign any document that the party files . . . .”). Although appellant had the right to file an appeal on her own behalf, she did not have the right to represent anyone else. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 7 (individual may appear pro se); see also, e.g., Paselk v. Rabun, 293 S.W.3d 600, 606 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, pet. denied) (pro se party had no authority to file notice of appeal on other party’s behalf). Because Jason Smith did not timely perfect an appeal and there appear to be no claims for affirmative relief by or against him in this matter, he is not a party to this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal will proceed under the style captioned in this order.

It is so ordered on July 8, 2014.

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Rose