Maryann Castro v. MLB Sub I, LLC ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                 Fourth Court of Appeals
    San Antonio, Texas
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    No. 04-16-00189-CV
    Maryann CASTRO and Manuel Castro,
    Appellants
    v.
    MLB SUB I, LLC,
    Appellee
    From the County Court, Atascosa County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 4343
    Honorable Lynn Ellison, Judge Presiding
    PER CURIAM
    Sitting:          Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
    Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
    Jason Pulliam, Justice
    Delivered and Filed: August 17, 2016
    DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION
    On July 18, 2016, appellants Maryann Castro and Manuel Castro, representing themselves,
    filed their original brief. The brief did not comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate
    Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. Specifically, the unsigned, two-page brief (with a forty-three
    page appendix) failed to include numerous essential components of a brief. See 
    id. On July
    22, 2016, we struck Appellants’ original brief and recited some of its defects: e.g.,
    the brief contained no identity of parties and counsel, no table of contents, no index of authorities,
    no statement of the case, and no statement of facts. Contra 
    id. We warned
    Appellants that the
    04-16-00189-CV
    brief did not identify the issues presented, contra 
    id. R. 38.1(f)
    (“The brief must state concisely all
    issues or points presented for review.”), nor did it contain any citations to the record, contra 
    id. R. 38.1(g)
    (“The statement [of facts] must be supported by record references.”); 
    id. R. 38.1(i)
    (“The
    brief must contain . . . appropriate citations . . . to the record.”). We also noted Appellants’ brief
    failed to present clear and concise legal arguments on any issues or points for review. Contra 
    id. In our
    July 22, 2016 order, we ordered Appellants to file an amended brief that fully
    complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See, e.g., 
    id. R. 9.4,
    9.5, 38.1. We warned
    Appellants that if the amended brief did not comply with the Rules and our order, we could “strike
    the brief, prohibit [Appellants] from filing another, and proceed as if [Appellants] had failed to file
    a brief.” See 
    id. R. 38.9(a);
    see also 
    id. R. 38.8(a)(1)
    (authorizing this court to dismiss an appeal
    if an appellant fails to timely file a brief).
    On August 1, 2016, Appellants filed an amended brief. Neither the five-sentence statement
    of facts nor any other part of the amended brief contains any citations to the record. Contra 
    id. R. 38.1(g)
    . There are no issues presented. Contra 
    id. R. 38.1(f)
    . The one-sentence argument section
    does not “contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made,” nor does it include
    “appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.” See 
    id. R. 38.1(i)
    . The brief contains no
    proof of service. Contra 
    id. R. 9.5(d),
    (e). The amended brief flagrantly violates Rules 9 and 38.
    Appellants’ amended brief fails to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure or our
    July 22, 2016 order; it is wholly inadequate to present any questions for appellate review. See Ruiz
    v. State, 
    293 S.W.3d 685
    , 693 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, pet. ref’d); Robert L. Crill, Inc. v.
    Bond, 
    76 S.W.3d 411
    , 423 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied). We strike Appellants’ amended
    brief, prohibit them from filing another, and dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX.
    R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3(b).
    PER CURIAM
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-16-00189-CV

Filed Date: 8/17/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/22/2016