Frank Nieves, Jr., Brandy Nieves, and Francisco Franklin v. Palladium Venus, Ltd., D/B/A Palladium Venus

Opinion

Court of Appeals

Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00427-CV

Frank Nieves, Jr., Brandy Nieves, and Francisco Franklin, Appellants

v.

Palladium Venus, Ltd., d/b/a Palladium Venus, Appellee

On appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 1 of Johnson County, Texas Judge John E. Neill, presiding Trial Court Cause No. CC-C20250435

JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants appealed from a judgment in an eviction proceeding. On April 16, 2026, Appellant Brandy Nieves submitted a document entitled “Appellant Case Brief.” The document was not signed by Brandy, did not include a certificate of service, and was not joined by the other two appellants in this proceeding. By letter from the Clerk of this Court dated April 16, 2026,

Appellants were notified of the deficiencies and were directed to correct the deficiencies in the document.

On May 13, 2026, Appellants were notified by the Clerk of this Court that the brief was late and that the appeal would be dismissed if a brief that complies with the Rules of Appellate Procedure was not submitted by May 27, 2026. On May 27, 2026, Appellants submitted an untitled, improperly signed document that states in its entirety:

To the tenth court of appeals in Waco Tx. We ask that the judge please help in the appeal of the court findings of Judge Neill. We have shown proof of this finding in previous court documents. We are a low-income family and cannot afford to pay the amount that is being asked for.

The document has an automated certificate of service attached that shows that the document was served to Brandy Nieves only.

The Clerk of the Court informed Appellants on May 27, 2026, that the document submitted for filing was not properly signed and does not comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellants were directed to submit a new brief on or before Wednesday, June 3, 2026, and further informed that the appeal would be dismissed if a brief was not submitted by that date. No response has been received from Appellants.

Nieves v. Palladium Venus, Ltd. Page 2

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution and the failure to follow directives from the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).

STEVE SMITH

Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: June 25, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Appeal dismissed CV06

Nieves v. Palladium Venus, Ltd. Page 3