Steadfast Funding, LLC v. 2017 Yale Development, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 8, 2025
• Docket: 01-23-00735-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued April 8, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00735-CV ——————————— STEADFAST FUNDING, LLC, Appellant/Cross-Appellee V. 2017 YALE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Appellee/Cross-Appellant

On Appeal from the 190th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2019-59191

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Steadfast Funding LLC 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 June 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 Yale’s 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

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Gunn and Guiney.

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