Norma Lopez v. Star Vascular, LLC D/B/A Star Vascular Access Center ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                             Fourth Court of Appeals
    San Antonio, Texas
    January 18, 2018
    No. 04-17-00550-CV
    Norma LOPEZ,
    Appellant
    v.
    STAR VASCULAR, LLC d/b/a Star Vascular Access Center,
    Appellees
    From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 2017-CI-15308
    Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding
    ORDER
    On January 10, 2018, Appellant Norma Lopez, representing herself, filed an appellate
    brief. The brief does not comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See
    TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1.
    For example, no part of the brief contains any citations to the record. See 
    id. R. 38.1(g)
    (“The statement [of facts] must be supported by record references.”); 
    id. R. 38.1(i)
    (“The
    [argument section of the] brief must contain . . . appropriate citations . . . to the record.”).
    The brief presents a single issue—that “the trial court erred in excluding critical
    evidence.” Appellant prays for this court to affirm the trial court’s order, but the trial court
    granted Appellee’s motion for summary judgment against Appellant’s claims.
    Further, the argument section consists of only two sentences, and it does not present any
    legal arguments. See 
    id. (“The brief
    must contain a clear and concise argument for the
    contentions made . . . .”). The brief also fails to cite any authorities. See 
    id. (requiring “appropriate
    citations to authorities”); Canton-Carter v. Baylor Coll. of Med., 
    271 S.W.3d 928
    ,
    931 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (“Failure to cite legal authority or to
    provide substantive analysis of the legal issues presented results in waiver of the complaint.”).
    Moreover, the brief does not contain an Appendix, see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(k), a
    certificate of compliance, see 
    id. R. 9.4(i)(3),
    or a proper certificate of service, see 
    id. R. 9.5.
            This court may order a party to amend, supplement, or redraw a brief if it flagrantly
    violates Rule 38. See 
    id. R. 38.9(a).
    We conclude that the formal defects described above
    constitute flagrant violations of Rule 38.
    Therefore, we STRIKE Appellant’s brief and ORDER Appellant Norma Lopez to file an
    amended brief within TEN DAYS of the date of this order. The amended brief must correct
    all of the violations listed above and fully comply with the applicable rules. See, e.g., 
    id. R. 9.4,
    9.5, 38.1. If the amended brief does not comply with this order, we “may strike the brief,
    prohibit [Appellant] from filing another, and proceed as if [Appellant] had failed to file a brief.”
    See 
    id. R. 38.9(a);
    see also 
    id. R. 38.8(a)
    (authorizing this court to dismiss an appeal if an
    appellant fails to timely file a brief).
    If Appellant timely file a brief that complies with this order, Appellee’s brief will be due thirty
    days after Appellant’s brief is filed. See TEX.
    _________________________________
    Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
    court on this 18th day of January, 2018.
    ___________________________________
    KEITH E. HOTTLE,
    Clerk of Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-17-00550-CV

Filed Date: 1/18/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/24/2018