Pshatoia LaRose v. AT&T Inc. ( 2024 )

DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 26, 2024
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-24-00165-CV
PSHATOIA LAROSE, Appellant
V.
AT&T INC., Appellee
On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-23-19047
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Garcia
Opinion by Justice Garcia
Appellant’s brief was originally due on April 10, 2024. By order dated May
7, 2024, we granted appellant’s motion to extend time to file her brief and ordered
her brief received on April 19, 2024 filed as of May 7, 2024. In that order, we
notified appellant, who is proceeding pro se, that her brief failed to comply with rule
38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. We listed
numerous defects in the brief, including that it did not contain a table of contents,
an index of authority indicating the pages of the brief where the authorities are cited,
or a statement of the case supported by record references. We further noted the brief
did not contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made with
appropriate citations to the record or to authority. We instructed appellant to file an
amended brief correcting these deficiencies within ten days. In the request, we
cautioned appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal if appellant failed to file
an amended brief in compliance with the rules of appellate procedure.
Appellant filed an amended brief on May 17, 2024. However, like her initial
brief, the amended brief fails to cite to the record or to authority in support of her
contentions.
The purpose of an appellant’s brief is to acquaint the Court with the issues in
a case and to present argument that will enable us to decide the case. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 38.9. The right to appellate review extends only to complaints made in
accordance with our rules of appellate procedure, which require an appellant to
concisely articulate the issues we are asked to decide, to make clear, concise, and
specific arguments in support of appellant’s position, to cite appropriate authorities,
and to specify the pages in the record where each alleged error can be found. See
Tex. R. App. P. 38.1; Lee v. Abbott, No. 05-18-01185-CV, 2019 WL 1970521, at *1
(Tex. App—Dallas May 3, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.); Bolling v. Farmers Branch
Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App—Dallas 2010, no pet.). Even
liberally construing appellant’s brief, we conclude it fails to acquaint the Court with
the issues in the case, does not enable us to decide the case, does not make clear,
concise, specific arguments, and is in flagrant violation of rule 38.
–2–
Under these circumstances, we strike appellant’s brief and amended brief, and
we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a); 42.3(b),(c).
/Dennise Garcia/
DENNISE GARCIA
240165F.P05 JUSTICE
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
PSHATOIA LAROSE, Appellant On Appeal from the 134th Judicial
District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-24-00165-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. DC-23-19047.
Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia.
AT&T INC., Appellee Justices Reichek and Goldstein
participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is
DISMISSED.
Judgment entered July 26, 2024
–4–