Esther C. De La Garza v. Mariselda Vela

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 27, 2025
• Docket: 13-24-00271-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00271-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

ESTHER C. DE LA GARZA, Appellant,

v.

MARISELDA VELA, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5 OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

This cause is before the Court on its own motion. On May 21, 2024, appellant

Esther C. De La Garza filed a notice of appeal from a May 2, 2024 judgment in trial court

cause number 2024CCV-60192-5. On January 7, 2025, the Clerk of the Court notified

appellant that the brief was past due, and that the appeal is subject to dismissal for want of prosecution if the brief is not received on or before January 28, 2025. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).

On January 16, 2025, this Court received a letter filed by the appellant and

construed the letter as her brief. On January 17, 2025, the Clerk of the Court notified

appellant that the brief did not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4(g),

9.4(i)(3), 9.4(j)(4), 9.5, and 38.1(a)–(d), (f)–(j) and advised that if the defects were not

cured within ten days from the date of the notice, the appeal shall be dismissed. See id.

R. 9.4(g), 9.4(i)(3), 9.4(j)(4), 9.5, 38.1(a)–(d), (f)–(j), 42.3(b), (c). On January 27, 2025,

appellant filed an amended brief. On January 29, 2025, the Clerk of the Court notified

appellant that the amended brief did not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

9.4(g), 9.4(i)(3), 9.5(d), (e), and 38.1(a)–(k). See id. R. 9.4(g), 9.4(i)(3), 9.5(d), (e),

38.1(a)–(k). Appellant was instructed to file a second amended brief that complies with

the rules and further advised that if another brief filed did not comply, “the Court may

strike the brief, prohibit appellant from filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed

to file a brief.” On February 10, 2025, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file

the second amended brief. This Court granted the extension to February 20, 2025. On

February 20, 2025, appellant’s second amended brief was received but did not comply

with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4(g), 9.4(i)(3), 9.5(d), (e), and 38.1(a)–(k). See

generally id. R. 9.4, 9.5, 38.1.

Appellant has failed to comply with the requirements of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure and has failed to comply with the notices from the Clerk of the Court

to cure the defect. See id. R. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(c). Accordingly, we strike appellant’s second

2 amended brief. The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s

failure to cure the defect, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Id. R. 42.3(b), (c).

CLARISSA SILVA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 27th day of February, 2025.