Brenda Francois v. Larry Campbell, Penske Truck Leasing Co., LP, Hearst Communications, Inc., and the Hearst Corporation

Court of Appeals of Texas

Brenda Francois v. Larry Campbell, Penske Truck Leasing Co., LP, Hearst Communications, Inc., and the Hearst Corporation

DecidedMay 6, 2021

Docket14-20-00750-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Brenda Francois v. Larry Campbell, Penske Truck Leasing Co., LP, Hearst Communications, Inc., and the Hearst Corporation (Brenda Francois v. Larry Campbell, Penske Truck Leasing Co., LP, Hearst Communications, Inc., and the Hearst Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brenda Francois v. Larry Campbell, Penske Truck Leasing Co., LP, Hearst Communications, Inc., and the Hearst Corporation, (Tex. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Concurring Opinion from Denial of En Banc Relief filed May 6, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-20-00750-CV

BRENDA FRANCOIS, Appellant

V. LARRY CAMPBELL, PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO., LP, HEARST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., AND THE HEARST CORPORATION, Appellees

On Appeal from the 125th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018-11129

CONCURRING OPINION FROM DENIAL OF EN BANC RELIEF

The court dismissed this appeal on January 12, 2021, specifically because the Appellant did not make arrangements to have the clerk’s record filed with us. However, the clerk’s record was filed three days later. Appellant’s Motion for En Banc Reconsideration is correct in asserting that the principles of equity and justice would normally allow us to withdraw that dismissal and let the appeal proceed. However, a review of the clerk’s record shows that on January 10, 2020, the trial court signed a final judgment granting the motion to dismiss filed by Appellees. Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial on February 10, 2020, and that motion was overruled by operation of law on March 25, 2020. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 4 (computation of time); Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(a) (time for filing motion for new trial); Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(c) (motion for new trial overruled by operation of law if not signed within seventy-five days of judgment). The trial court signed a written order denying Appellant’s Motion for New Trial on October 19, 2020, but that order had no effect on the timeline to perfect this appeal, because that time had expired over six months prior.

I concur in the judgment of the court denying the motion for reconsideration because, under these facts, we never had jurisdiction to consider this appeal at all.

/s/ Meagan Hassan Justice

En Banc Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise, Jewell, Bourliot, Zimmerer, Spain, Hassan, Poissant, and Wilson. (Hassan, J., concurring).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Concurring Opinion from Denial of En Banc Relief filed May 6, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-20-00750-CV

BRENDA FRANCOIS, Appellant

V. LARRY CAMPBELL, PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO., LP, HEARST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., AND THE HEARST CORPORATION, Appellees

On Appeal from the 125th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018-11129

CONCURRING OPINION FROM DENIAL OF EN BANC RELIEF

The court dismissed this appeal on January 12, 2021, specifically because the Appellant did not make arrangements to have the clerk’s record filed with us. However, the clerk’s record was filed three days later. Appellant’s Motion for En Banc Reconsideration is correct in asserting that the principles of equity and justice would normally allow us to withdraw that dismissal and let the appeal proceed. However, a review of the clerk’s record shows that on January 10, 2020, the trial court signed a final judgment granting the motion to dismiss filed by Appellees. Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial on February 10, 2020, and that motion was overruled by operation of law on March 25, 2020. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 4 (computation of time); Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(a) (time for filing motion for new trial); Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(c) (motion for new trial overruled by operation of law if not signed within seventy-five days of judgment). The trial court signed a written order denying Appellant’s Motion for New Trial on October 19, 2020, but that order had no effect on the timeline to perfect this appeal, because that time had expired over six months prior.

I concur in the judgment of the court denying the motion for reconsideration because, under these facts, we never had jurisdiction to consider this appeal at all.

/s/ Meagan Hassan Justice

En Banc Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise, Jewell, Bourliot, Zimmerer, Spain, Hassan, Poissant, and Wilson. (Hassan, J., concurring).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brenda Francois v. Larry Campbell, Penske Truck Leasing Co., LP, Hearst Communications, Inc., and the Hearst Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brenda-francois-v-larry-campbell-penske-truck-leasing-co-lp-hearst-texapp-2021.