William J. Hibler v. Erik Garza

Opinion

Motion Granted in Part and Order filed May 10, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-00942-CV

____________

WILLIAM J. HIBLER, Appellant

V.

ERIK GARZA, Appellee

On Appeal from the 133rd District Court Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-30808

ORDER

On February 13, 2012, appellant filed a brief that was not in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The brief failed generally to comply with the rules. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j) and (k). Appellee filed a motion to strike. The motion was granted and appellant was ordered to file an amended brief.

On April 13, 2012, appellant filed another brief, nearly identical to the first, that also fails to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellee filed another motion

2

and requests we "strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing another, and proceed as if the party has failed to file a brief." The motion is granted, in part, and we order appellant's brief filed April 13, 2012, stricken.

When an appellant files another brief that does not comply with Rule 38, the Court may strike the brief, prohibit appellant from filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a). Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a), where an appellant has failed to file a brief, we may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

Accordingly, appellant is ordered to file a brief that complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure within ten (10) days of the date of this order. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j) and (k). If appellant fails to timely file a brief in accordance with Rule 38, the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).

PER CURIAM