### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-16-00248- CV

Jose A. Soliz, Appellan t

v.
Hom e De pot, USA, Inc., Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY , 26TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 15- 0400 -C26 , H ONO RAB LE DONNA GAY LE K ING, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

J ose Soli z ap p eals a final judgme nt of the district court that dismiss ed, for want
of jurisdiction, a suit he had filed ag ainst appellee Home Depot USA, I nc. W e will aff irm 1 the judg ment.
The gist of Soliz ’s suit is that Home Depot acte d neg lige ntly in failing to require proof of identification from a thi rd party who had fra udulently used S o l i z ’s cre dit car d number to
make a fifty -dollar pur chase at a Home Depot store. Although Soliz filed with his petition a letter
from his cre dit-car d company i n d i ca ting that the fifty -dollar purcha se was never char g ed to his

acc ount, he soug ht five milli on dollars in damag es for “mental anguish” h e cl ai m s to have

Soliz has acte d p ro s e b o t h below and on appea l. We are bound to apply the same 1 substantive and proce dural standards to him as we do with litigants repr esente d by counsel, lest we aff ord him an unfair advanta g e mere ly beca use he is pro se. See Man s f i el d S t ate Bank v. Cohn , 573 S.W .2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978).experience d during a period in which his acc ount was alleg edly “fr ozen,” plus exemplary damag es,

pre- and post-judgme nt interest, attorney ’s fee s, and court costs. Home Depot filed a g ener al denial
and moved to dism i s s S oliz ’s suit for failure to satisfy the $500 minimum amount in controve rsy require d to invoke the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Hom e Depot arg ued that its 2 liability would be statutorily limit ed to fifty dollars and that Soliz could not, in any event, rec over 3
mental-a ng uish damag es under the circ umstances here. Following a hear ing on Home Depot’s 4 motion, the district court signe d a final judgme nt order g ranting the motion and dismiss ing Soliz ’s

5

case for wa

nt of jurisdiction.
Soliz attempted to pe rfe ct an appea l by filing a “Just ice Court A ppeal Bond.” This
Court responde d wi t h a l ett er to Soliz advising that he should file, by a specifie d deadline, an
amende d notice of appea l tha t c omplies w ith Rule 25.1 of the Rules of Appellate Procedur e. Our 6

See Tex. Gov’t Code § 24.007. 2
See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1643, 1693g. 3 Namely , Home Depot contende d that Soliz ’s “claims are purely economic, [ he] wa s not 4 phy sically injured, no specia l rela tionship exis ted betwee n [S oliz ] and [Home Depot], and this is not a b y s t an d er cl aim.” See, e.g. , City of Tyler v. L ikes , 962 S.W .2d 489, 496 (Tex. 1997) (“Wit ho u t intent or malice on the defe ndant’s part, serious bodily injury to the plaintiff, or a specia l rela tionship betwee n the two par t i es , we p er mit rec overy for mental ang uish in only a few ty pes of case s involving injuries of such a shocking and dis t u rb i n g n ature that mental ang uish is a highly fore seea ble result. These include suits for wrong ful death,

. . . and actions by by standers for a close family member’ s serious injury .” (c itations omi tted)).
No additional evidenc e wa s prese nted at the he aring

. 5
See Tex. R. App. P . 25.1. 6
2letter infor med Soliz that his failure to comply “may result i n dismiss al for want of jurisdiction.” 7
Soliz did not file an amende d notice of appea l, and that failure would permit us to dismiss his appea l
and lea ve the district cour

t’s judgme nt undisturbed. 8 Reg ardle ss, Soliz does not pr esent a ny arg ument on appea l tha t w ould de monstrate

reve rsible err o r. His only arg ument that is conce ivably materia l to the g rounds for dismiss al is a
contention that his alleg ed damag es are “re asonable. ” Yet Soliz does not eng ag e the controlling 9 issues—why his alleg ed mental-a ng uish damag es would be rec overa ble under Texas law or how his damag es actua lly rec overa ble (i f an y

) would satisfy the $500 jurisdictional minimum for Texas
district courts. Nor

does Soliz cite to any authorities ot her than a li st of cases t hat he perc eives to
rela te to the issue of venue, which is not contested h ere
. Soliz has failed to demonstrate any

reve rsible er

ror in the district cour

t’s judgme nt. 1 0

Our recor ds further ref

lect that following a subsequent phone call from S o l i z , o u r C l erk 7 sent Soliz an e- m ai l forwa rding “the reque st for amende d notice of appea l that he said he never rec eived.”
See id. R. 42.3(a) , (c) (authorizing court to dismiss appea l or aff irm appea led judgme nt on 8 its own i nitiative, afte r t en day s’ not ice to all parties, if the appeal i s subject t o dismiss al for want of jurisdiction, or “bec ause the appellant has failed to com p ly with

. . . a notice from the cler k requiring a re sponse or other action within a spec ified time”).
We understand Soli z’s brief as asser ting three arg uments: (i) his suit correc tly identified 9 Home Depot as a party , (ii) venue and jurisdiction wer e proper in Wil liamson County , and (iii) the damag es he soug ht were “re asonable .”
See also Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i) (“The brief must contain a clea r and concise arg ument for 1 0 the contentions made, with a ppropriate citations to a

uthorities a

nd to the rec ord.”) ; Fredonia State Bank v. Gene ral Am. Life Ins. Co. , 881 S.W .2d 279, 284 (Tex. 1994) (appe llate court has discretion to conclude that issues are waived due to inadequa te briefing and is not require d to allow appellant opportunity to amend inadequa te brief) ; W are v. Estate of

Simpson , No. 03-14-00083- CV , 2015 Tex. App. L EXI S 12840, at *18 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec

. 22, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“B are asser tions of er ror, without ar g ument or authority , waive e rror .” (c itation omit ted)).
3We affir m the judgme nt.

__________________________________________

Bob Pembe rton, J ustice

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and F ield
Affir med
Filed: Jul y

19, 2017

4