Court Opinion

ID: 9956871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 06:12:25.129929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:56.666465
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Opinion Filed March 27, 2024

                                   S  In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-22-00881-CV

                        BARBARA DIXON, Appellant
                                  V.
                      TRANSPORT AMERICA, Appellee

                On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-06464

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                Before Justices Carlyle, Goldstein, and Breedlove
                          Opinion by Justice Goldstein
      Appellant Barbara Dixon appeals from the trial court’s order granting

traditional summary judgment in favor of appellee Transport America. Dixon

contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. We affirm.

Because all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2.
                                       I.      BACKGROUND1

        Dixon worked as a truck driver for Transport America from approximately

June 4, 2018 to March 7, 2019, when she was terminated after a trucking incident.

In April of 2019, Dixon became aware that Transport America had reported

information concerning the incident to HireRight, LLC, a consumer reporting

agency, which she believed could impact her future employment. Dixon disputed

the information on the HireRight report through various complaints and

communications to HireRight.

        On May 3, 2021, Dixon filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Texas

Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division (TWC) and the United States Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that Transport America had

discriminated against her on the basis of her race on March 2, 2019. The EEOC

issued a Notice of Right to Sue on May 3, 2021, and Dixon brought this lawsuit

against Transport America on May 21, 2021.2 Dixon’s petition did not identify any

specific causes of action, but based on the allegations in the petition, Transport

America addressed potential claims of: (1) discrimination under the Texas

    1
     Because Dixon did not provide this Court with a Statement of Facts as required under Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure, we draw these facts from Transport America’s brief. See TEX. R. APP. P.
38.2(a)(1)(B). The record before us also supports these historic facts.
    2
     Dixon also filed a second lawsuit against Transport America and HireRight in County Court at Law
Number 1 of Dallas County, which was removed to the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division which
was dismissed. Because that later-filed case is not relevant to the issues brought in this appeal, we do not
address it further. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2.
                                                   –2–
Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), Title VII3; (2) defamation; and

(3) personal injury. Dixon generally alleged that Transport America discriminated

against her during her employment and wrongfully terminated her based on a false

allegation related to a driving incident. Dixon further contended that she lost job

opportunities because of the false information she claims Transport America

reported to HireRight.

         Transport America filed a traditional motion for summary judgment on July

19, 2022, asserting: (1) Dixon’s claims were time-barred; (2) Dixon’s factual

allegations of unintentional discrimination are incompatible with the elements of a

race discrimination claim under Section 1983; and (3) the single action rule

precluded Dixon from simultaneously pursuing her claims in multiple separate

proceedings. On July 29, 2022, Dixon filed a “Motion Dismissing Summary

Judgment” responding to Transport America’s motion and attaching as exhibits

various documents. The trial court held a hearing on Transport America’s motion

and excluded Dixon’s attachments. The trial court granted Transport America’s

motion on August 15, 2022.

         Dixon filed a motion for new trial on August 16, 2022 but filed her notice of

appeal to this Court on September 7, 2022, before the trial court heard her motion

for new trial.

   3
       42 U.S.C. § 1981.

                                          –3–
                                    II.    ANALYSIS

      Transport America argues that Dixon’s brief is deficient under the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure and should be dismissed without the Court addressing

the merits of the appeal and that Dixon failed to preserve any point of error for this

Court to address the merits of the appeal.

      On January 17, 2023, Dixon submitted her appellant’s brief for filing. In a

letter dated January 27, 2023, this Court notified Dixon that her brief failed to meet

the following briefing requirements:

      1)     It does not contain a complete list of all parties to the trial courts’
             judgment or appealable order with the names and addresses of all
             trial and appellate counsel. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(a).

      2)     It does not contain a table of contents with references to the pages
             of the brief. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(b).

      3)     The table of contents does not indicate the subject matter of each
             issue or point, or group of issues or points. TEX. R. APP. P.
             38.1(b).

      4)     It does not contain an index of authorities arranged alphabetically
             and indicating the pages of the brief where the authorities are
             cited. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(c).

      5)     It does not contain a concise statement of the case, the course of
             proceedings, and the trial court’s disposition of the case
             supported by record references. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(d).

      6)     It does not concisely state all issues or points presented for
             review. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(f).

      7)     It does not contain a concise statement of the facts supported by
             record references. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g).

                                          –4–
         8)    It does not contain a succinct, clear, and accurate statement of
               the arguments made in the body of the brief. TEX. R. APP. P.
               38.1(h).

         9)    The argument does not contain appropriate citations to
               authorities. TEX R. APP. P. 38.1(i).

         10)   The argument does not contain appropriate citations to the
               record. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i).

         11)   It does not contain a short conclusion that clearly states the nature
               of the relief sought. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(j).

         12)   Documents contain sensitive data. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.9, 9.10.

         We cautioned Dixon that a failure to file an amended brief that complied with

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure within 10 days of the date of the letter “may

result in dismissal of this appeal without further notice from the Court. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).” On February 10, 2023, Dixon submitted her

amended brief, which failed to correct all of the deficiencies noted by this Court,

including no analysis to support her contentions, citations to the record, or discussion

of the cited legal authority. This appeal was submitted on the amended deficient

brief.

         In Texas, an individual who is a party to civil litigation has the right to

represent herself at trial and on appeal. TEX. R. CIV. P. 7. The right of self-

representation carries with it the responsibility to adhere to our rules of appellate

procedure. Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.).

                                            –5–
      We construe liberally pro se pleadings and briefs; however, we hold pro se

litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply with

applicable laws and rules of procedure. In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d 211, 211–12 (Tex.

App.–Dallas 2008, no pet.). To do otherwise would give a pro se litigant an unfair

advantage over a litigant who is represented by counsel. Id. at 212. The law is well

established that, to present an issue to this Court, a party’s brief shall contain, among

other things, a concise, non-argumentative statement of the facts of the case,

supported by record references, and a clear and concise argument for the contention

made with appropriate citations to authorities and the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1.

When a party fails to adequately brief a complaint, despite notice and an opportunity

to cure, she waives the issue on appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3; Bertaud v. Wolner

Indus., No. 05-15-00620-CV, 2017 WL 1360197, at *2 (Tex. App.–Dallas Apr. 12,

2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).

      We discern that Dixon challenges the trial court’s grant of summary judgment,

ordering that Dixon take nothing and dismissing with prejudice all claims. However,

we must be able to discern from an appellant’s brief what question of law is at issue

in the case. Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 896 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.); see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(f).

      Dixon has failed to provide us with argument, analysis, or authorities that

would entitle her to relief on appeal. See Bertaud, 2017 WL 1360197, at *3. Without

                                          –6–
record citations, legal analysis, or citation to appropriate authority, Dixon has failed

to preserve her arguments for our review. See Steele, 2020 WL 6440499, at *3 (brief

lacking legal analysis preserved nothing for review).4

                                           IV.     CONCLUSION

        We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                       /Bonnie Lee Goldstein/
                                                       BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN
220881F.P05                                            JUSTICE

    4
      We note without further discussion that our disposition would not change had we been able to reach
the merits. The limited record shows that Transport America was entitled to summary judgment on its
limitations defense, which Dixon did not address. See Diffee v. Gutierrez, No. 05-21-01109-CV, 2023 WL
2887624, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 11, 2023, no pet.) (appellee was only required to conclusively
establish the accrual date of each of appellant’s causes of action and that the lawsuit was filed outside of
the limitations for each claim to obtain a summary judgment).
                                                   –7–
                                    S
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                   JUDGMENT

BARBARA DIXON, Appellant                       On Appeal from the 14th Judicial
                                               District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-00881-CV           V.                Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-06464.
                                               Opinion delivered by Justice
TRANSPORT AMERICA, Appellee                    Goldstein. Justices Carlyle and
                                               Breedlove participating.

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

       It is ORDERED that appellee TRANSPORT AMERICA recover its costs of
this appeal from appellant BARBARA DIXON.

Judgment entered this 27th day of March 2024.

                                         –8–