1717 Norfolk, LLC and Phillip Pope v. David Davari and Jose Dominguez-Rebollar
Docket 01-25-01093-CV
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Dismissed
- Docket
- 01-25-01093-CV
Appeal from an interlocutory partial summary-judgment order made final by severance and assignment of appeal to the First District of Texas
Summary
The First District of Texas consolidated two duplicate appeals filed after the trial court granted partial summary judgment and later severed the case, making that interlocutory order final and appealable. The court found the notices of appeal filed in two appellate dockets were identical and stemmed from the same October 2, 2025 severance order, so it granted the unopposed motion to consolidate and ordered the consolidated appeal to proceed under cause number 01-26-00052-CV. Because the appellate record is incomplete, the court declined to set a briefing schedule and dismissed the duplicate appellate docket 01-25-01093-CV.
Issues Decided
- Whether two separately filed notices of appeal that seek review of the same severed, final order create duplicate appeals
- Whether the Court should consolidate duplicate appeals and direct which appellate cause number will proceed
- Whether to set a briefing schedule when the appellate record is incomplete
Court's Reasoning
The court determined the two appeals were duplicates because both notices of appeal challenged the same October 2, 2025 order that severed and rendered the partial summary-judgment order final. Under controlling practice, duplicate appeals should be consolidated into a single appellate cause; the court exercised that authority and chose the second-opened cause number to proceed. Because the appellate record was incomplete (no reporter's record and incomplete clerk's record), the court declined to set a briefing schedule and dismissed the redundant appellate docket.
Authorities Cited
- Texas Rules of Appellate ProcedureTEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a); TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f)
- Ring & Ring d/b/a Wright’s Amusements v. Sharpstown Mall Tex., LLCNo. 01-16-00321-CV, 2016 WL 3220552 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 9, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.)
- BBG Group, L.L.C. v. MBI Global, L.L.C.No. 14-12-00247-CV, 2012 WL 3241557 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 9, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.)
Parties
- Appellant
- 1717 Norfolk, LLC
- Appellant
- Phillip Pope
- Appellee
- David Davari
- Appellee
- Jose Dominguez-Rebollar
- Judge
- Chief Justice Adams
- Judge
- Justice Guerra
- Judge
- Justice Guiney
Key Dates
- Opinion issued
- 2026-04-21
- Order granting severance and rendering summary judgment final
- 2025-10-02
- Appellate case 01-25-01093-CV opening (trial court assignment letter forwarded)
- 2025-12-29
- Appellant Pope notice of appeal filed in severed case (appellate opening)
- 2026-01-13
- Motion to consolidate filed by appellants
- 2026-03-24
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Complete the appellate record
Appellants should ensure the reporter’s record and a full clerk’s record (including the severed-case notice of appeal and any judgment dismissing the severed cause) are filed so the appeal can proceed.
- 2
Coordinate briefing schedule
Once the record is complete, counsel should consult the court’s rules and, if needed, file a proposed or agreed briefing schedule consistent with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a).
- 3
Confirm consolidated docket
Counsel should treat appellate cause number 01-26-00052-CV as the official consolidated appeal and file all future documents in that docket.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court found two appeals were duplicates, consolidated them under one appellate cause number (01-26-00052-CV), and dismissed the duplicate docket 01-25-01093-CV.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The appellants (1717 Norfolk, LLC and Phillip Pope) and the appellees (David Davari and Jose Dominguez-Rebollar) are affected because their appeals will proceed in a single consolidated docket.
- Why didn't the court set a briefing schedule?
- Because the appellate record is incomplete—there is no reporter’s record and the clerk’s record lacks certain documents—so the court declined to set deadlines until the record is complete.
- Can the decision to consolidate or dismiss be challenged?
- Not directly in this opinion; a party could seek appropriate relief in the appellate court if they believe consolidation or dismissal was improper, but the court relied on routine procedural rules and precedent to consolidate and dismiss the duplicate docket.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Opinion issued April 21, 2026
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-25-01093-CV
———————————
1717 NORFOLK, LLC AND PHILLIP POPE, Appellants
V.
DAVID DAVARI AND JOSE DOMINGUEZ-REBOLLAR, Appellees
On Appeal from the 333rd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2023-64077
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant 1717 Norfolk, LLC has filed an unopposed motion to consolidate
the appeal in appellate case number 01-25-01093-CV with appellate case number
01-26-00052-CV, contending they are duplicate appeals, and asks that we order a
uniform briefing schedule.
In both appeals, appellants are attempting to appeal from an order signed
November 5, 2024, granting partial summary judgment. This interlocutory summary
judgment order was made final and appealable on October 2, 2025 when the trial
court granted appellants’ motion to sever and ordered the trial court clerk to create
case number 2023-64077A.
Appellant 1717 Norfolk, LLC contends that it attempted to file a motion for
new trial in the severed case and the trial court clerk refused the filing. Unable to
file the motion for new trial in the correct case number, 2023-64077A, 1717 Norfolk
then filed their motion for new trial in the underlying case number, 2023-64077. On
December 29, 2025, 1717 Norfolk attempted to file a notice of appeal in the severed
case, but the trial court clerk again refused the filing. Thus, 1717 Norfolk filed its
notice of appeal in the underlying case. The trial court clerk then forwarded a letter
of assignment to this Court from trial court case number 2023-64077 and this Court
opened appellate case number 01-25-01093-CV, styled 1717 Norfolk, LLC and
Phillip Pope v. David Davari and Jose Dominguez-Rebollar.
On January 13, 2026, appellant Pope filed his notice of appeal in the severed
case, and the trial court clerk forwarded a letter of assignment from trial court case
number 2023-64077A to this Court. Our Court then opened another appeal in
appellate case number 01-26-00052-CV, styled Phillip Pope v. Ali “David” Davari
D. Pasadena, LLC and Jose Luis Dominguez-Rebollar.
2
The notices of appeal filed by 1717 Norfolk and Pope are identical, other than
the trial court case number stated. Both notices assert that 1717 Norfolk and Pope
are appealing from the trial court’s October 2, 2025 order granting severance and
rendering final the order granting summary judgment in trial court cause number
2023-64077A. Thus, these are duplicate appeals.
On March 24, 2026, appellants filed a motion to consolidate these two appeals
and asked that we order a uniform briefing schedule. Because we have determined
that these are duplicate appeals, we grant appellants’ motion and consolidate the
two appeals, 01-25-01093-CV and 01-26-00052-CV. Any records and documents
filed in appellate case number 01-25-01093-CV are consolidated into appellate case
number 01-26-00052-CV. The consolidated appeal shall proceed under appellate
cause number 01-26-00052-CV.
The appellate record appears to be incomplete. No reporter’s record has been
filed. Moreover, the only clerk’s record on file, which was filed in appellate case
number 01-25-01093-CV, contains the post-judgment motions filed by 1717
Norfolk and Pope and the notice of appeal filed by 1717 Norfolk. No clerk’s record
was filed in 01-26-00052-CV and thus, the clerk’s record lacks a notice of appeal
from Pope. Appellants state in their motion to consolidate that the trial court signed
a judgment dismissing the severed cause for want of prosecution. That judgment is
also not in the clerk’s record. Accordingly, we decline to set a briefing schedule at
3
this time. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a) (appellants’ brief is not due until thirty days
after complete appellate record is filed).
Appellate case number 01-25-01093-CV is dismissed. See Ring & Ring d/b/a
Wright’s Amusements v. Sharpstown Mall Tex., LLC, No. 01-16-00321-CV, 2016
WL 3220552, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 9, 2016, no pet.) (mem.
op.) (consolidating appeals from same judgment into one appellate cause and
dismissing duplicate appeal); BBG Group, L.L.C. v. MBI Global, L.L.C., No. 14-12-
00247-CV, 2012 WL 3241557, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 9,
2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same); TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Guiney.
4