Court Opinion

ID: 9387815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-19 06:07:37.491418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:15.692956
License: Public Domain

DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 12, 2023

                                    S  In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-22-00667-CV

                    EVANGELINA REYES, Appellant
                                V.
            JOSE TINAJERO, A BETTER PLACE LLC, Appellee

               On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-02212

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                   Before Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Smith
                            Opinion by Justice Smith
      After appellant failed to respond to our inquiry regarding the reporter’s record,

we ordered the appeal submitted without a reporter’s record. Following four

extensions of time to file her brief, appellant filed a brief on February 3, 2023. On

February 9, 2023, we notified appellant, who is proceeding pro se, that her brief

failed to comply with rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.1. We listed numerous defects in the brief, including that it did not

contain a table of contents, a statement of the case, or list the issues for review.

Further, no part of the brief contained any citations to the record and the brief did
not list or cite to any authorities. We instructed appellant to file an amended brief

correcting these deficiencies within ten days. We later extended the time to file her

amended brief and sent appellant a copy of the clerk’s record on February 22, 2023.

On March 14, 2022, we denied appellant’s March 13, 2023 second request to extend

time to file her amended brief. In that order, we cautioned appellant that her brief

remained due on March 15, 2023 and that the appeal remained subject to dismissal

if she failed to file an amended brief. To date, appellant has not filed an amended

brief nor otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal.

      Even liberally construing appellant’s February 3, 2023 brief, we conclude it

is wholly inadequate to present any questions for appellate review and is in flagrant

violation of rule 38.1. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1; Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep.

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

although directed to do so, appellant has failed to file an amended brief correcting

the briefing deficiencies. Under these circumstances, we strike appellant’s February

3, 2023 brief and dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.9(a); 42.3(b),(c).

                                           /Craig Smith/
                                           CRAIG SMITH
                                           JUSTICE
220667F.P05

                                        –2–
                                   S
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                  JUDGMENT

EVANGELINA REYES, Appellant                  On Appeal from the 101st Judicial
                                             District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-00667-CV          V.               Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-02212.
                                             Opinion delivered by Justice Smith.
JOSE TINAJERO, A BETTER                      Justices Molberg and Carlyle
PLACE LLC, Appellee                          participating.

    In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is
DISMISSED.

Judgment entered April 12, 2023

                                       –3–