Court Opinion

ID: 9363428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-16 00:10:10.652856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:31.871325
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-21-00455-CV

                              COURT OF APPEALS

                    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                       CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

MARIA A. LARA,                                                              Appellant,

                                                 v.

VICENTE ORTIZ,                                                                Appellee.

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

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

  Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina
             Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

       Appellant Maria A. Lara appeals the trial court’s order granting appellee Vicente

Ortiz’s plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. In her sole issue, Lara claims that

the trial court erred in dismissing her suit. We affirm.
                                       I.      BACKGROUND 1

        On December 4, 2020, Lara filed her original petition in the county court alleging

that Ortiz breached a contract and engaged in consumer fraud. Lara alleged that she

entered into an oral agreement with Ortiz for the construction of a chain-link fence on her

property for $3,500. Lara further alleged that during construction, she gave notice to Ortiz

that the fence was not constructed or placed properly, but Ortiz never remedied major

defects and ultimately abandoned the job. The original petition also alleged the following:

        [Lara] was obligated to re-survey the property at an additional cost of
        $1,190.00, and removal of the fence herself ([i]t was encroaching [on] other
        people’s property), all at an additional cost of at least $2,000. [Lara] has
        now been assessed with the original cost of $3,400.00, with a lien against
        her property.

               Wherefore, [Ortiz] has been guilty of consumer fraud and [Lara]
        should recover double the amount of her losses, remove the lien, and have
        other relief at law or in equity the Court may deem proper.

        On January 8, 2021, Ortiz filed his “Plea to the Jurisdiction, Motion to Dismiss[,]

and Original Answer.” In his filing, Ortiz generally denied all allegations but also claimed

that the county court lacked jurisdiction because Lara’s suit was previously litigated in the

justice court. Specifically, Ortiz alleged “the same[] parties, same facts, and same causes

of action were litigated in the Justice Court”; “[a] final judgment was granted in favor

of . . . Ortiz and against . . . Lara in the Justice Court for this same cause of action”; “Lara

failed to appeal the ruling of the Justice Court and therefore said Judgment is final”; Lara’s

suit “constitutes a collateral attack on the Judgment of the Justice Court and is improper”;

        1 Lara did not request the reporter’s record in this case, and none was filed. In addition, Lara
indicated “[t]here are no Reporter’s notes” in her brief.
                                                   2
and the county court “cannot have jurisdiction since the appeal was not perfected.” Ortiz’s

filing further stated the following:

       This case involves the same parties, facts[,] and causes of action as was
       already litigated in the Justice Court. Therefore this matter is res judicata.
       Any claims that . . . Lara had against . . . Ortiz were mandatory. Since she
       did not file her mandatory counter claims, and thereafter appeal the
       Judgment of the Justice Court, this matter should be dismissed.

  On January 21, 2021, Ortiz filed a second plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss

making many of the same claims as his January 8, 2021 filing, but also included a detailed

procedural history and timeline of the proceedings in the justice court. The pleading also

stated the following:

       There has been a lapse of over [eighteen] months since the Justice Court
       signed the final judgment awarding Vicente Ortiz the sum of $3,500.00.
       Maria Antonia Leal [sic] simply failed to file an appeal or otherwise perfect
       an appeal from the ruling of the Justice Court. Maria Antonia Leal [sic]
       indicates to this Court in her pleadings that she has been assessed with a
       lien against her property in the amount of $3,400.00 but fails to tell this Court
       who signed the lien or what Court the lien came from. Maria Antonia Lara
       simply fails to tell this Court the history of the Justice Court.

       On March 2, 2021, Lara filed her requests for admissions pursuant to Texas Rule

of Civil Procedure 198. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 198.

       On June 23, 2021, Lara filed her “Motion for Judgment,” in which she stated the

following:

       [Lara] has sued for damages to her home by [Ortiz] after he attempted to
       construct a perimeter fence around her ([Lara]’s) homestead. [Ortiz]
       abandoned the construction job, and left the site without improvement. No
       contract was ever executed, but nevertheless, [Ortiz] has attempted to
       impose a lien on [Lara]’s homestead.

               ....

                                              3
              Request[s] for admission were posed to [Ortiz], and no answer has
       ever been filed, deeming the same admitted and confessed. Wherefore,
       [Lara] prays that this Court grant judgment for all relief prayed.

       On November 29, 2021, the trial court signed and filed its “Order on [Ortiz]’s Plea

to the Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss.” In the said order, the trial court granted Ortiz’s

plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the case. The order also granted Ortiz’s motion to

dismiss on the grounds of res judicata. The order stated that “[t]his order constitutes a

final judgment as to all parties and all issues.”

       Lara timely filed a motion for new trial and rehearing, which was denied by the trial

court. This appeal ensued. 2

                                         II.      MOTION TO DISMISS

       In her sole issue, Lara asserts that the “trial court erred in granting an outright

dismissal of [her] action for consumer fraud and damages.” Lara’s argument spans a

single page, wherein she argues—without citation to the record—that “res judicata or

collateral estoppel does not prevent a second portion of a lawsuit to be tried,” that her

“action may involve the same parties and background, but the relief sought is certainly

different and resulting from other conduct”; and that “[o]ther issues need to be determined

in this separate action.” Though Lara provides two case citations, she provides no

explanation as to their relevance to the instant case. In other words, the two case citations

constitute the full extent of her argument. Lara does not explain with citation to pertinent

authority and with substantive argument how the trial court erred in rendering the

       2   Ortiz did not file a brief to assist us in the resolution of this matter.

                                                          4
complained-of order, and we are unable to construe her argument. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.1(i). Lara requests that we reverse the trial court’s order granting Ortiz’s plea to the

jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. However, without proper legal analysis with citation to

applicable authority, we are unable to determine the merits of her requested relief. See

id. As an appellate court, we are prohibited from performing an independent review of the

record and the applicable law to determine whether there was error. Hernandez v.

Hernandez, 318 S.W.3d 464, 466 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010, no pet.); see also The Port

of Corpus Christi, LP v. Port of Corpus Christi Auth. of Nueces Cnty., No. 13-19-00378-

CV, 2021 WL 2694772, at *11 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg July 1, 2021, no pet.)

(mem. op.) (“An appellate court is not permitted to perform an independent review of the

record and applicable law to determine whether there was error. In doing so, we would

be abandoning our role as neutral adjudicators and become an advocate for that party.”)

(internal citations omitted). “We will not do the job of the advocate.” Happy Harbor

Methodist Home, Inc. v. Cowins, 903 S.W.2d 884, 886 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

1995, no writ); see also Samara Portfolio Mgmt., LLC v. Zargari, No. 13-17-00049-CV,

2018 WL 2979847, at *9 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 14, 2018, pet.

denied) (mem. op.) (concluding the same). Accordingly, we conclude that Lara’s assertion

is forfeited as inadequately briefed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). We overrule Lara’s sole

issue.

                                            5
                                  III.   CONCLUSION

       The trial court’s judgment granting Ortiz’s plea to the jurisdiction and motion to

dismiss is affirmed.

                                                             NORA L. LONGORIA
                                                             Justice

Delivered and filed on the
12th day of January, 2023.

                                           6