Court Opinion

ID: 9380455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-18 17:08:20.554642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:24.924662
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-22-00514-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

CRISTINA REYNA,                                                              Appellant,

                                                v.

R & N PROPERTIES, LLC,
                                                                             Appellee.

               On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7
                        of Hidalgo County, Texas.

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

             Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina
                Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

       This cause is before this Court on appellee R&N Properties, LLC’s second

amended opposed motion to dismiss. On December 5, 2022, appellant Cristina Reyna

filed a brief that was not in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The

brief, filed prior to the clerk’s record, failed generally to comply with the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4., 9.5, 38.1.

       Appellant subsequently filed an amended brief on January 27, 2023. On January

31, 2023, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that her brief was untimely and failed

to comply with Rules 9.4(h), (i)(3), and (j)(1) and 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure. Appellant was directed to file an amended brief in compliance with the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure within ten days of the date of the letter along with a motion

for leave to file the brief.

       On February 1, 2023, appellant filed a letter with the Court regarding the timeliness

of her appeal but did not file an amended brief correcting the errors as instructed in this

Court’s January 31, 2023 letter. On February 6, 2023, this Court sent appellant a notice

regarding her amended brief, reiterating that appellant’s amended brief still did not comply

with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and providing greater detail regarding the

defects, specifically explaining that the brief contained no appendix, no certificate of

compliance, was not text-searchable, and generally contained no discernible issues or

argument. See id. The letter further instructed appellant to file an amended brief

correcting the defects, if it could be done. Appellant filed a second amended brief on

February 10, 2023 and was notified the same day that the brief still did not comply with

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellant was given ten days to file an amended

brief correcting the errors, if it could be done. Appellant was also notified that if the Court

received another brief that did not comply, the Court may strike the brief, prohibit appellant

                                              2
from filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief, under which

circumstances the Court may affirm the judgment or dismiss the appeal. See id. 38.9(a),

42.3(b), (c). Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice.

       On February 17, 2023, appellant filed a “motion to leave to amend,” which lacked

a certificate of conference, and was notified of the defect. See id. 10.1(a)(5). Appellant

did not file a separate brief correcting the defects as previously instructed to do. Appellee

filed its second amended opposed motion to dismiss on March 3, 2023. Appellant

subsequently filed an amended motion for leave to amend on the same day. Appellant’s

March 3, 2023 filing does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and

fails to adequately present argument for this Court’s review. On March 13, 2023, appellant

filed her opposition to appellee’s motion to dismiss.

       Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys, and they

must therefore comply with all applicable rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v.

Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978). If the appellate court determines that the

briefing rules have been flagrantly violated, it may require a brief to be amended,

supplemented, or redrawn. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a). If the appellant does not file a brief

that complies with the rules of appellate procedure, the appellate court may strike the

brief, prohibit the party from filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a

brief. Id. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a), where an appellant has

failed to file a brief, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

                                              3
       Accordingly, we grant appellee’s second amended motion to dismiss, we strike

appellant’s non-conforming brief, and order the appeal dismissed for want of

prosecution. 1 See id. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), (c).

                                                                       NORA L. LONGORIA
                                                                       Justice

Delivered and filed on the
16th day of March, 2023.

       1   Any pending motions in this matter are dismissed as moot.

                                                    4