Patrick Minor v. Red Hook Crab Shack LLC

Court of Appeals of Texas

Patrick Minor v. Red Hook Crab Shack LLC

DecidedJanuary 27, 2022

Docket04-21-00377-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Patrick Minor v. Red Hook Crab Shack LLC (Patrick Minor v. Red Hook Crab Shack LLC) 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.

Bluebook

Patrick Minor v. Red Hook Crab Shack LLC, (Tex. Ct. App. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 27, 2022

No. 04-21-00377-CV

Patrick MINOR, Appellant

v.

RED HOOK CRAB SHACK LLC, Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020CI19625 Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding

ORDER On December 29, 2021 we ordered Appellant to rewrite his brief because he failed to comply with requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See, e.g., TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. We further ordered Appellant to file a rewritten brief that fully complied with the applicable rules. See id. R. 9.5, 38.1. Appellant filed his rewritten brief, but it does not correct all of the deficiencies listed in our order and does not fully comply with the applicable rules. In particular, the brief does not contain any citations to specific pages in the clerk’s record or reporter’s record and does not contain an appendix. Given these and other defects, the rewritten brief does not include Rule-compliant versions of the following:

• Statement of Facts • Argument, or • an Appendix.

See id. R. 9.4, 9.5, 38.1.

“[L]itigants who represent themselves must comply with the applicable procedural rules.” Li v. Pemberton Park Cmty. Ass’n, 631 S.W.3d 701, 705-06 (Tex. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, courts of appeal “should review and evaluate pro se pleadings with liberality and patience.” Id. at 706 (internal quotation marks omitted). We recognize Appellant is acting pro se on appeal. Despite the rewritten brief’s defects, we are not striking Appellant’s rewritten brief or ordering Appellant to file a second rewritten brief. However, the submission panel may determine that Appellant has waived one or more issues due to inadequate briefing if the noted deficiencies are not corrected prior to submission. See Canton-Carter v. Baylor Coll. of Med., 271 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (briefing waiver).

The brief of Appellee Red Hook Crab Shack LLC is due on February 28, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b).

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 27th day of January, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 27, 2022

No. 04-21-00377-CV

Patrick MINOR, Appellant

v.

RED HOOK CRAB SHACK LLC, Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020CI19625 Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding

ORDER On December 29, 2021 we ordered Appellant to rewrite his brief because he failed to comply with requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See, e.g., TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. We further ordered Appellant to file a rewritten brief that fully complied with the applicable rules. See id. R. 9.5, 38.1. Appellant filed his rewritten brief, but it does not correct all of the deficiencies listed in our order and does not fully comply with the applicable rules. In particular, the brief does not contain any citations to specific pages in the clerk’s record or reporter’s record and does not contain an appendix. Given these and other defects, the rewritten brief does not include Rule-compliant versions of the following:

• Statement of Facts • Argument, or • an Appendix.

See id. R. 9.4, 9.5, 38.1.

“[L]itigants who represent themselves must comply with the applicable procedural rules.” Li v. Pemberton Park Cmty. Ass’n, 631 S.W.3d 701, 705-06 (Tex. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, courts of appeal “should review and evaluate pro se pleadings with liberality and patience.” Id. at 706 (internal quotation marks omitted). We recognize Appellant is acting pro se on appeal. Despite the rewritten brief’s defects, we are not striking Appellant’s rewritten brief or ordering Appellant to file a second rewritten brief. However, the submission panel may determine that Appellant has waived one or more issues due to inadequate briefing if the noted deficiencies are not corrected prior to submission. See Canton-Carter v. Baylor Coll. of Med., 271 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (briefing waiver).

The brief of Appellee Red Hook Crab Shack LLC is due on February 28, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b).

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 27th day of January, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Patrick Minor v. Red Hook Crab Shack LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patrick-minor-v-red-hook-crab-shack-llc-texapp-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack