Jacquoria Jack v. BP Virtuo LLC

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
• Decided: June 18, 2026
• Docket: 01-25-00814-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued June 18, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00814-CV ——————————— JACQUORIA JACK, Appellant V. BP VIRTUO LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1256813

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Jacquoria Jack, proceeding pro se, challenges the trial court’s

August 27, 2025 final judgment.

We dismiss the appeal. On January 5, 2026, Jack filed her appellant’s brief with this Court. On May

7, 2026, this Court notified Jack that her appellant’s brief did not comply with the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure because, among other things, it did not contain

an appropriate table of contents; contain a proper index of authorities; “state

concisely the nature of the case,” “the course of [the] proceedings,” and “the trial

court’s disposition of the case,” “supported by record references”; “include a

statement explaining why oral argument should or should not be permitted”; “state

concisely all issues or points presented for review”; “state concisely and without

argument the facts pertinent to the issues or points presented,” “supported by record

references”; “contain a succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments

made in the body of the brief”; “contain a clear and concise argument for the

contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record”; or

include an appendix with the necessary contents. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(b), (c),

(d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (k).

Thus, on May 7, 2026, the Court struck Jack’s January 5, 2026 brief and

ordered her to file a corrected appellant’s brief that complied with the Texas Rules

of Appellate Procedure within thirty days of the date of the Court’s order. The Court

informed Jack that if she did not file a corrected appellant’s brief that complied with

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, it would strike her corrected brief, prohibit

her from filing another, proceed as if she had failed to file an appellant’s brief, and

2 dismiss her appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f); see also

Tucker v. Fort Worth & W. R.R. Co., No. 02-19-00221-CV, 2020 WL 3969586, at

*1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 18, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (striking

amended brief and dismissing appeal for want of prosecution where appellant

ordered to file amended brief but amended brief also failed to comply with Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure); Tyurin v. Hirsch & Westheimer, P.C., No.

01-17-00014-CV, 2017 WL 4682191, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct.

19, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same). The Court also informed Jack that if she failed

to timely file her corrected brief, we would dismiss her appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(a)(1), 42.3, 43.2(f). Jack did not timely file her corrected brief.

Because Jack did not timely file her corrected brief, we dismiss the appeal for

want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3, 43.2(f); Bennett v. Jenkins,

No. 01-21-00557-CV, 2022 WL 3268531, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

Aug. 11, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.); Orozco v. Reserve at Pecan Valley Apartments,

No. 04-21-00447-CV, 2022 WL 848363, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 23,

2022, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re W.A.F., No. 04-19-00723-CV, 2020 WL 5913842,

at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 7, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (after appellate

court struck appellant’s brief for failure to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 38.1, appellant failed to file amended brief as ordered, and appellate court

dismissed appeal for want of prosecution); see also Averett v. Huffman Indep. Sch.

3 Dist., No. 01-19-00482-CV, 2020 WL 717543, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] Feb. 13, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“When an appellant fails to file a brief, we

may dismiss his appeal for want of prosecution.”). We dismiss any pending motions

as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Rivas-Molloy and Guiney.