Erika Diann Gross v. Joyce Gross and Vincent Gross

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-17-00764-CV
Erika Diann GROSS,
Appellant
v.
Joyce GROSS and Vincent Gross,
Appellees
From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2017-CV-05264
Honorable Jason Wolff, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Delivered and Filed: March 28, 2018
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION
This appeal arises from the eviction judgment rendered against Appellant Erika Diann
Gross. Because Appellant failed to file a brief that complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.
On February 26, 2018, Appellant Erika Diann Gross, representing herself, filed an
appellate brief. The brief did not comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1.
04-17-00764-CV
For example, no part of the brief contained 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 presented a single issue—whether the trial “court fail[ed] to acknowledge the
procedural process of month-to-month tenancies requiring thirty day written notice that the
landlord desires possession.” Appellant prayed for this court to reverse the trial court’s judgment
based on lack of notice.
The argument section consisted of three sentences, but it did not include any citations to
the record. See id. (“The brief must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made,
with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.”). The brief cited section 91.001 of the
Texas Property Code, but failed to show that a lease exists that would invoke the statute, and it
failed to cite any case law to support Appellant’s position. See id. (requiring “appropriate citations
to authorities and to the record”); 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 did 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.
On March 7, 2018, we struck Appellant’s brief and ordered Appellant to file an amended
brief not later than March 19, 2018, that complied with our order and the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure. See, e.g., id. R. 9.4, 9.5, 38.1. We warned Appellant that if the amended brief did not
comply with our order, we could “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).
To date, Appellant has not filed any response to our March 7, 2018 order.
-2-
04-17-00764-CV
Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4,
38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3(b),(c).
PER CURIAM
-3-