Habib Surani v. Trinity River Vision Authority
This text of Habib Surani v. Trinity River Vision Authority (Habib Surani v. Trinity River Vision Authority) 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.
Opinion
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00243-CV
Habib Surani § From the 153rd District Court
§ of Tarrant County (153-256860-11) v. § January 24, 2013
Trinity River Vision Authority § Per Curiam
JUDGMENT
This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that
the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for
want of prosecution.
It is further ordered that appellant Habib Surani shall pay all of the costs of
this appeal, for which let execution issue.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
PER CURIAM COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
HABIB SURANI APPELLANT
V.
TRINITY RIVER VISION APPELLEE AUTHORITY
----------
FROM THE 153RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
Pro se appellant Habib Surani appeals from the trial court’s order granting
the plea to the jurisdiction filed by appellee Trinity River Vision Authority. We
originally set the due date for appellant’s brief at October 17, 2012. Appellant did
not file a brief by that date, so on October 29, 2012, we notified him that we could
dismiss his appeal for want of prosecution unless, by November 8, 2012, he filed
1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2 a motion reasonably explaining the failure to file a brief and the need for an
extension. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). On November 6, 2012, we received
a document that we construed as appellant’s brief, but three days later, we sent
appellant a letter explaining that the document did not comply with any briefing
requirement under rule of appellate procedure 38.1.2 See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1.
We informed appellant that if he did not file an amended brief that complied with
rule 38.1 by November 19, 2012, we could dismiss his appeal.
On November 15, 2012, we received a letter from appellant, but we have
not received an amended brief. Accordingly, we strike appellant’s brief and
dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), (c);
Johnson v. Dall. Hous. Auth., 179 S.W.3d 770, 770 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no
pet.); see also Yeldell v. Denton Cent. Appraisal Dist., No. 02-07-00313-CV,
2008 WL 4053014, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 29, 2008, pet. denied)
(mem. op.) (explaining that all parties appearing in Texas appellate courts must
follow the rules of appellate procedure).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.
DELIVERED: January 24, 2013
2 For example, the brief contained no legal authorities, no issues, no legal arguments, and no appendix. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(c), (f), (i), (k).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Habib Surani v. Trinity River Vision Authority, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/habib-surani-v-trinity-river-vision-authority-texapp-2013.