Adrian Booker v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee for the Supreme Court of Texas Appeal from 366th Judicial District Court of Collin County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Dismissed and Opinion Filed October 3 , 2016. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-00039-CV ADRIAN BOOKER, Appellant V. UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW COMMITTEE FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366-02101-2015 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart Opinion by Justice Stoddart Adrian Booker appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the suit brought against him by the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee for the Supreme Court of Texas (UPLC). In his notice of appeal, Booker asserts the motion to dismiss was filed pursuant to the Texas Citizenship Protection Act (TCPA), which provides for a speedy dismissal of lawsuits “designed only to chill First Amendment rights.” See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. ch. 27 (West 2015); In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579, 589 (Tex. 2015). Although an order denying a motion to dismiss brought under the TCPA is immediately appealable despite the lack of a final judgment, the UPLC has moved to dismiss this appeal noting the motion does not reflect it was brought under the TCPA. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(12) (West Supp. 2016); Lehman v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (generally, only appeals from final judgments may be taken). The UPLC is correct. The copy of the motion included in the clerk’s record purports to be fourteen pages in length, but the district clerk noted at the time of filing that pages two through four were missing. The remaining pages do not state a basis for dismissal. We have reviewed the rest of the record and note the order reflects a hearing was held on the motion, but no record of the hearing was made and the order does not state the basis for Booker’s motion. Booker has filed a response to the UPLC’s motion and has attached to the response a copy of his motion. Page two of this copy states the motion is brought pursuant to section 27.003. However, we may not consider documents not formally included in the appellate record. See Green v. Kaposta, 152 S.W.3d 839, 841 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet). Because the record before us does not reflect the basis Booker moved to dismiss the UPLC’s suit, and no final judgment exists, we grant the UPLC’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); see also Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex. 2001) (noting legislative intent that section 51.014 be strictly construed as narrow exception to general rule that only final judgments and orders may be appealed). /Craig Stoddart/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE 160039F.P05 –2– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT ADRIAN BOOKER, Appellant No. 05-16-00039-CV On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366-02101-2015. Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. Chief Justice Wright and Justice Lang-Miers participating. V. UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW COMMITTEE FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS, Appellee In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. We ORDER appellee Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee for the Supreme Court of Texas recover its costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Adrian Booker. Judgment entered this 3rd day of October , 2016. –3–
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
