him. Se'e 342 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet. denied). However, Yuen does not hold that a pro se party cannot be sanctioned pursuant to Chapter 10. In Yuen, although Yuen’s name was on the challenged pleadings, the pleadings themselves were actually signed by associates at Yuen’s law firm, not by Yuen himself. Id. at 828. Chapter 10 allows for the imposition of sanctions against “a person [who] has signed a pleading or motion.” Id. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals followed cases construing Rule 13 that limited “sanctions for groundless pleadings to the attorney who actually signed the pleadings and a represented party” and held that because section 10.004 contains substantially similar language to Rule 13, that section “likewi ouston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). None of the cases cited by Akinwamide
holding attorney lacked standing to challenge amount of attorney fees awarded plaintiffs not parties to the appeal holding that trial court erred in sanctioning attorney under rule 13 when only pleading motion or other paper attorney signed was his notice of appearance which was not challenged as sanctionable by opposing parties holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider an award of sanctions entered against attorney because the notice of appeal did not provide that attorney was appealing in his own name holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner holding that under florida law for the purposes of collateral estoppel an attorney is in privity with his or her client in a previous suit when the opposing party in that action brings a subsequent suit against the attorney based in the same facts