Affirmed and Opinion Filed April 7, 2015 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01595-CV 

JUANITA GAROFALO, Appellant 

V. 

DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-03116-E 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill 

Opinion by Justice Whitehill 

Appellant Juanita Garofalo, pro se below and on appeal, sued appellee Dallas Area Rapid 

Transit in justice court for property damage her pick-up truck suffered in a collision with a 

DART bus. The justice court rendered a take-nothing judgment, and Garofalo appealed to the 

county court at law. After a de novo bench trial, the county court rendered a take-nothing 

judgment. Garofalo raises three appellate points of error. In her first two points, she complains 

that the county court erred by discounting certain evidence at trial and by denying her new-trial 

motion. In her third point, she contends the justice court erred by denying her motion for 

reinstatement. We affirm. 
 –2– 

Reinstatement of Justice Court Case

We address Garofalo’s third point of error first. She asserts that the justice court 

rendered judgment against her because she failed to appear at trial, and that the justice court 

erred by not granting her motion for reinstatement. We conclude that Garofalo’s third point of 

error is moot because she was given a trial de novo by the county court at law. See Stevenson v. 

Hous. Auth. of City of Austin, 385 S.W.3d 684, 687 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012, no pet.) 

(complaint that justice court denied appellant due process was mooted by de novo trial in county 

court); Coleman v. Bank of Am., Nat’l Ass’n, No. 06-11-00105-CV, 2012 WL 1940674, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Texarkana May 30, 2012, no pet.) (complaints about justice-court default judgment 

were mooted by de novo trial in county court). Accordingly, we overrule Garofalo’s third point 

of error. 

Refusal to Consider Evidence at Trial

Garofalo’s first point of error asserts that the county court erred by allegedly refusing to 

consider certain evidence that she presented at trial. Although she cites two federal regulations 

that purportedly require drug testing of mass-transit employees after certain kinds of accidents, 

she does not explain their relevance to her point of error, and she cites no other authorities in 

support of her first point of error. Nor does she support her first point of error with a cogent 

argument demonstrating error. We conclude her first point of error is inadequately briefed and 

therefore overrule it. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i); Garofalo v. Check Into Cash of Tex., LLC, No. 

05-12-01193-CV, 2013 WL 3874537, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 24, 2013, pet. denied) 

(mem. op.) (rejecting points of error as inadequately briefed); Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. 

Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895–96 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.) (explaining the 

requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1). 
 –3– 

Denial of Motion for New Trial Based on New Evidence

Garofalo’s second point of error asserts that the county court erred by denying her newtrial motion. We review this ruling for abuse of discretion. Roberts v. Roper, 373 S.W.3d 227, 

235 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.). Garofalo argues that she was entitled to a new trial to 

present new evidence—a recorded statement by a witness who did not appear at trial. A party 

seeking a new trial based on newly discovered evidence must show that (i) she did not discover 

the evidence until after the trial, (ii) her failure to discover the evidence was not due to lack of 

diligence, (iii) the evidence is not cumulative or merely for impeachment, and (iv) the evidence 

is so material that it would probably produce a different result if a new trial were granted. Id. 

Garofalo presents no argument that she satisfied the first two of these elements. We see nothing 

in the record indicating that she satisfied those requirements. We hold that the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion by denying Garofalo’s new-trial motion, so we overrule her second point of 

error. 

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

131595F.P05 

 

/Bill Whitehill/ 

BILL WHITEHILL 

JUSTICE 
 –4– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

JUANITA GAROFALO, Appellant 

No. 05-13-01595-CV V. 

DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT, 

Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 5, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-03116-E. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill. 

Justices Francis and Lang-Miers 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT recover its costs of 

this appeal from appellant JUANITA GAROFALO. 

Judgment entered April 7, 2015.