Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2025

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

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 of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided April 8, 2025

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

Opinion

Opinion issued April 8, 2025

In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00761-CV ——————————— 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 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

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.

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.