In the Matter of the Marriage of Karlie Nicole Harris and Rodolfo Gustavo Rosa and in the Interest of J.R.H. and A.R.H. v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 14, 2023
• Docket: 07-22-00309-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-22-00309-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF KARLIE NICOLE HARRIS AND RODOLFO GUSTAVO ROSA AND IN THE INTEREST OF J.R.H. AND A.R.H

On Appeal from the 362nd District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 15—08449-211, Honorable Bruce McFarling, Presiding

July 14, 2023 MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Before QUINN, C.J. and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Rodolfo G. Rosa appeals, pro se, from an order dismissing his action to modify

earlier divorce and child custody decrees. He and his ex-wife, Karlie Nicole Harris, had

two children who were the subjects of the custody decrees. The trial court dismissed the

action for want of prosecution. It afforded the parties notice of its intent to do so if they

failed to either file a scheduling order by a certain date or appear at the scheduled

1 This appeal was originally filed in the Second Court of Appeals and was transferred to this Court

by a docket-equalization order of the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T ANN. § 73.001. Because this matter was transferred from the Second Court of Appeals, we apply its precedent when it conflicts with that of the Seventh Court of Appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. dismissal hearing. They did neither. In response to the dismissal, Rosa appealed and

raised issues implicating the absence of geographic restrictions in the earlier custody

orders. We affirm.

We review an order dismissing an action for want of prosecution under the

standard of abused discretion. Pence v. S&D Builders, LLC, No. 07-21-00080-CV, 2021

Tex. App. LEXIS 9916, at *6–7 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Dec. 15, 2021, pet. denied) (mem.

op.). A court abuses its discretion when it acts without reference to any guiding rules or

principles; that is, when it acts arbitrarily or unreasonably. Pence, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS

9916, at *7. Furthermore, the burden lies with the party complaining of the decision to

show this. Id. And, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 requires him to do so through

citation to the record and pertinent authority coupled with substantive analysis. TEX. R.

APP. PROC. 38.1(i); Pempsell v. Birt, No. 02-18-00259-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 9579,

at *4–5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 31, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.). Should the rule go

unheeded, we deem the issue waived. Pempsell, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 9579, at *5.

Finally, these rules apply equally to those acting pro se. Rahman v. Discover Bank, No.

02-19-00182-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 3870, at *3–4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 7,

2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).

As previously mentioned, Rosa’s short brief focused on the underlying merits of

his action against his wife, not the validity of the trial court’s decision to dismiss the suit

for want of prosecution. The latter is before us, not the meritoriousness of the claims

asserted against his wife. No legal authority discussing when and why a trial court may

exercise its authority to enter an order like that here was mentioned in the brief. Nor did

he provide us with substantive analysis explaining how or why the trial court acted

2 improperly by dismissing the suit. Thus, he waived any complaint he may have had about

the dismissal, which, in turn, bars us from concluding that the trial court erred in dismissing

the suit.

We overrule Rosa’s issues and affirm the order of dismissal for want of

prosecution.

Brian Quinn Chief Justice