Teresa F. Romero and Diana Romero v. Ally Financial Inc. ( 2021 )

NUMBER 13-20-00472-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
TERESA F. ROMERO AND
DIANA ROMERO, Appellants,
v.
ALLY FINANCIAL INC., Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 10
of Bexar County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Tijerina
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa
This cause is before the Court on its own motion. 1 On June 3, 2021, appellants
jointly appeared pro se and filed a brief that was not in compliance with the Texas Rules
1 Thiscase is before the Court on transfer from the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio pursuant
to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
of Appellate Procedure. On June 11, 2021, appellants filed a first amended brief. The
amended brief failed generally to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4, 38.1. On June 16, 2021, appellants filed a second amended
brief which was also not in compliance.
On June 30, 2021, the Clerk of the Court notified appellants that the corrected brief
did not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(c), 9.4 (d), 9.4(h), 9.4(j)(4), or
38.1(b, c, e, g, i, k). Appellants were directed for a third time to file an amended brief in
compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure within ten days of the date of
the letter, and notified for the second time that if the Court received another brief that did
not comply, the Court may strike the brief, prohibit appellants from filing another, and
proceed as if appellants had failed to file a brief, under which circumstances the Court
may affirm the judgment or dismiss the appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a), 42.3(b),(c).
Appellants have failed to cure the defects in their third amended brief, filed on July 14,
2021.
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 a party files a brief that does not comply
with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and that party files an amended brief that
likewise does not comply with the rules, we may strike the brief, prohibit the party from
filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a).
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a), where appellants have failed to
file a brief, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
2
Accordingly, we strike appellants’ non-conforming brief and order the appeal
dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b)(c).
LETICIA HINOJOSA
Justice
Delivered and filed on the
26th day of August, 2021.
3