Pro-Health Podiatry P.A. v. Tarrant County, City of Arlington, City of Grand Prairie, Arlington Independent School District, Tarrant County College District, and Tarrant County Hospital District

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 22, 2024
Docket02-24-00220-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Pro-Health Podiatry P.A. v. Tarrant County, City of Arlington, City of Grand Prairie, Arlington Independent School District, Tarrant County College District, and Tarrant County Hospital District (Pro-Health Podiatry P.A. v. Tarrant County, City of Arlington, City of Grand Prairie, Arlington Independent School District, Tarrant County College District, and Tarrant County Hospital District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pro-Health Podiatry P.A. v. Tarrant County, City of Arlington, City of Grand Prairie, Arlington Independent School District, Tarrant County College District, and Tarrant County Hospital District, (Tex. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-24-00220-CV ___________________________

PRO-HEALTH PODIATRY P.A., Appellant

V.

TARRANT COUNTY, CITY OF ARLINGTON, CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE, ARLINGTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, TARRANT COUNTY COLLEGE DISTRICT, AND TARRANT COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, Appellees

On Appeal from the 348th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 348-D35847-23

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Pro-Health Podiatry P.A.’s notice of appeal was filed by its president

and registered agent, Dr. Yvette E. Forbes-Baker. On June 21, 2024, we sent a letter

to Pro-Health Podiatry P.A. informing it that further action was necessary:

A business entity generally may not appear in court through its directors or officers who are not attorneys, and a notice of appeal filed by such a director or officer is not effective. See Globe Leasing, Inc. v. Engine Supply & Mach. Serv[]., 437 S.W.2d 43, 45 (Tex. [] App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1969, no writ); see also Kunstoplast of Am., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996). Legal entities, such as a corporation,[1] generally may appear in court only through a licensed attorney. See Sherman v. Boston, 486 S.W.3d 88, 95 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. denied); [Dell] Dev. Corp. v. Best Indus. Unif[.] Supply Co., 743 S.W.2d 302, 303 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, writ denied) (“Corporations may appear and be represented only by a licensed attorney.”); see Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. § 302.001 (applying statutes governing for-profit corporations to professional associations as well). Our records do not reflect that Dr. Yvette E. Forbes-Baker is an attorney. Accordingly, unless a licensed attorney files a notice of appearance for [A]ppellant Pro-Health Podiatry[] P.A. with this court on or before Monday, July 22, 2024, this appeal may be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).

No licensed attorney has appeared for Pro-Health Podiatry P.A. Because Pro-

Health Podiatry P.A. has failed to obtain counsel as directed by our June 21, 2024

letter, we dismiss its appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c), 43.2(f), 44.3.

Per Curiam Delivered: August 22, 2024 1 Except as provided by Title 7 of the Texas Business Organizations Code, “a professional association [such as Pro-Health Podiatry P.A.] has the same powers, privileges, duties, restrictions, and liabilities as a for-profit corporation.” E. Tex. Kidney Specialists, P.A. v. Vij, No. 12-24-00024-CV, 2024 WL 3084454, at *7 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 21, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.) (quoting Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. § 2.108).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kunstoplast of America, Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp.
937 S.W.2d 455 (Texas Supreme Court, 1997)
Dell Development Corp. v. Best Industrial Uniform Supply Co.
743 S.W.2d 302 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Globe Leasing, Inc. v. Engine Supply & MacHine Service
437 S.W.2d 43 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Sherman v. Boston
486 S.W.3d 88 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Pro-Health Podiatry P.A. v. Tarrant County, City of Arlington, City of Grand Prairie, Arlington Independent School District, Tarrant County College District, and Tarrant County Hospital District, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pro-health-podiatry-pa-v-tarrant-county-city-of-arlington-city-of-texapp-2024.