# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

March 7, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00764

- CV

Erika Diann GROSS, Appellant

v.

Joyce GROSS and Vincent Gross,

Appellee s
From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017

- CV

- 05264 Honorable Jason Wolff, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On February 26, 2018

, A ppellant Erika Dian Gross , r epresenting herself

, filed an appellate brief . The brief does not comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1.
For example, n o part of the brief contain s any citation s to the record. See id. R. 38.1(g) (“The statement [of facts] must be supported by record references.”); id. R. 38.1(i) (“The [argument section of the] brief must contain .

. . appropriate citations .

. . to the record.”).

T he brief presents a single issue

— whether the trial “ court fail[ed] to acknowledge the procedural process of month

- to

- month tenancies requiring thirty day written notice that the landlord desires possession.” Appellant prays for this court to reverse the trial court’s judgment based on lack of notice

. T he argument section consists of three sentences, but it does not include any citations to the record

. See id. (“The brief must contain a c lear and concise argument for the contentions made , with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record .”). The brief cites section 91.001 of the Texas Property Code, but fails to show that a lease exists that would invoke the statute, and it fail s to cite any case law to support her position

. See id. (requiring “appropriate citations to authorities and to the record ”) ; Canton

- Carter v. Baylor Coll. of Med. , 271 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (“ Failure to cite legal authority or to provide substantive analysis of the legal issues presented resu lts in waiver of the complaint.”).Moreover, the brief does not contain an Appendix, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(k), a

certificate of compliance, see id. R. 9.4(i)(3) , or a prop er certificate of service, see id. R. 9.5

. T his court may order a party to amend, supplement, or redraw a brief if it flagrantly violates R ule 38. See id. R. 38.9(a). We conclude that the formal defects described above constitute flagrant violations of R ule 38.

Th erefore, we STRIKE Appellant ’ s brief and ORDER A ppellant Erika Dian Gross to file an amended brief within T EN DAYS of the date of this order. The amended brief must
correct all of the violations listed above and fully comply with the applicable rules. See,

e.g. , id. R. 9.4, 9.5, 38.1. If the amended brief does not comply with this order , we “ may strike the brief

, prohibit [A ppellant ] from filing another , and proceed as if [Appellant] had failed to file a brief.” See id. R. 38.9(a); see also id. R. 38.8(a) (authorizing this court to dismiss an appeal if an appellant fails to timely file a brief). If Appellant timely file a brief that complies with this order, Appellee’s brief will be due thirty days after Appellant ’ s brief is filed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(b).

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 7th day of March, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court