Maria Trevino, Annette Trevino, and Annalle Trevino v. Ricardo Garza Gonzalez ( 2023 )

NUMBER 13-23-00061-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
MARIA TREVINO, ANNETTE TREVINO,
AND ANNALLE TREVINO, Appellants,
v.
RICARDO GARZA GONZALEZ, Appellee.
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 9
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras
This cause is before the Court on its own motion. On April 3, 2023, appellants
Maria Trevino, Annette Trevino, and Annelle Trevino filed a brief in this appeal from a no-
evidence summary judgment granted for appellee Ricardo Garza Gonzalez. The following
day, the Clerk of the Court notified appellants that the brief did not comply with the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(h), (j)(4), 38.1(a), (i), and directed
appellants to file an amended brief in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure within ten days of the date of the notice.
Appellants filed an amended brief on April 14, 2023. Three days later, the Clerk of
the Court notified appellants that the brief did not comply with the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure, see id. R. 9.4(h), 38.1(a–c), (g), (i), and directed appellants to file
an amended brief in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure within five
days of the date of the notice.
Appellants filed a second amended brief on April 19, 2023. That same day, the
Clerk of the Court notified appellants for a third time that the brief did not comply with the
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see id. R. 38.1(c), (g), (i), and directed appellants
to file an amended brief in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure within
ten days of the date of the notice. The Clerk notified appellants that failure to file a
compliant brief would result in the appeal’s dismissal.
On June 8, 2023, the Clerk of the Clerk once again notified appellants that their
April 19, 2023 brief did not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and that
failure to cure the defects within ten days would result in the appeal’s dismissal.
Appellants have failed to file a compliant brief. So we dismiss this appeal. See id. R.
42.3(b), (c).
Even if we were to give their noncompliant, inadequate brief a liberal construction,
appellants cannot succeed on the merits. This case is before the Court following the trial
court’s no-evidence summary judgment for appellee. “Texas Rule of Civil Procedure
2
166a(i) provides that ‘a party without presenting summary judgment evidence may move
for summary judgment on the ground that there is no evidence of one or more essential
elements of a claim or defense on which an adverse party would have the burden of
proof.’” Sauceda v. GMAC Mortg. Corp., 268 S.W.3d 135, 138–39 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi–Edinburg 2008, no pet.) (quoting Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i)). “The burden then falls
entirely on the adverse party to produce summary judgment evidence raising a genuine
issue of material fact.” Draughon v. Johnson, 631 S.W.3d 81, 88 (Tex. 2021). “The
nonmovant’s response must specifically identify the supporting summary judgment
evidence that it seeks to have considered by the trial court.” BP Am. Prod. Co. v. Zaffirini,
419 S.W.3d 485, 507 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. denied) (cleaned up).
“Attaching entire documents . . . to a response and referencing them only generally does
not relieve the party of pointing out to the trial court where in the documents the issues
set forth in the . . . response are raised.” Id. “The trial court must grant the [no-evidence]
motion [for summary judgment] if the non-movant does not produce summary judgment
evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on each element challenged.” Johnson,
631 S.W.3d at 88; see TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i) (“The court must grant the motion unless
the respondent produces summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material
fact.”).
Here, appellants produced no evidence in response to appellee’s no-evidence
motion for summary judgment. Instead, their response generally referenced an “Exhibit
A” and a “Transcript” which purportedly contained some form of evidence, but which were
neither attached to their response nor are found in the record. See Zaffirini, 419 S.W.3d
3at 507. Thus, appellants failed to meet their burden to produce evidence raising genuine
issues of material fact on the challenged elements of their claim, and the trial court did
not err by granting appellee’s motion. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i); Johnson, 631 S.W.3d
at 88.
DORI CONTRERAS
Chief Justice
Delivered and filed on the
27th day of July, 2023.
4