Marilyn R. Hodge v. Texas Trust Credit Union

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 21, 2011
• Docket: 02-10-00413-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

02-10-413-CV

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00413-CV

Marilyn R. Hodge		APPELLANT
V.
Texas Trust Credit Union		APPELLEE

----------

FROM County Court at Law No. 2 OF Tarrant COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

          On February 10, 2011, Appellant, acting pro se, filed her brief with this court.  On February 11, 2011, we notified Appellant that her brief is defective in substance and form, specifically listing the ways in which the brief does not comply with the rules of appellate procedure.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(a)–(j), 42.3.  Appellant filed an amended brief on February 22, 2011.  That brief failed to cure a number of the defects noted in the original.  On February 25, 2011, we notified Appellant that her amended brief still did not conform to the rules of appellate procedure.  We also stated that failure to file a second amended brief complying with the rules on or before March 7, 2011, could result in us striking the noncompliant brief, waiver of any nonconforming points, or dismissal of the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9, 42.3(c).  Appellant has not filed a second amended brief, nor has she responded to our second letter.

Rule 38.9 provides that “substantial compliance” with the briefing rules is required subject to exceptions.  Tex. R. App. P. 38.9.  First, if the court determines that the briefing rules have been flagrantly violated as to form, the court may require the appellant to amend, supplement, or redraw her brief.  Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a).  If the appellant files another brief that does not comply, the court may strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing another, and proceed as if the party did not file a brief.  Id.

          Accordingly, because this court informed Appellant of the substantial defects in her brief, and Appellant failed to file an amended brief that cured those defects, we strike Appellant’s brief and dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3(c); Newman v. Clark, 113 S.W.3d 622, 623 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.).

PER CURIAM

PANEL:  GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DELIVERED:  April 21, 2011

---

[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.