From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ochoa v. Nail Flower Beauty Salon

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Apr 16, 2015
No. 04-14-00509-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 16, 2015)

Opinion

No. 04-14-00509-CV

04-16-2015

Gloria OCHOA, Appellant v. NAIL FLOWER BEAUTY SALON, Appellee


From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2013-CI-12691
Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant has filed an amended brief, but has not filed an extension of time to file another amended brief. Initially, we granted appellant, who is pro se, two extension of time to file her original brief for a total of seventy-four days. She then filed a third request, asking for another sixty days. We granted her request in part, and denied it in part, giving her sixteen additional days to file the brief. We noted that no further extensions of time would be granted absent written proof of extraordinary circumstances. Appellant timely filed her brief on February 13, 2014. However, the brief failed to comply, in a number of respects, with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure. Accordingly, we issued an order striking the brief, pointing out the deficiencies and ordering appellant to file an amended brief curing the deficiencies by March 25, 2015. Appellant filed an amended brief on March 18, 2015, but the brief still failed to comply with Rule 38.1 in that it did not include a statement of facts with record reference, the argument within the brief was not relevant to the actual judgment, the argument was not supported by record references or proper legal authorities, the issues were not proper appellate issues, and the brief did not contain a proper appendix. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(f), (g), (i), (k). Nevertheless, we accepted appellant's amended brief. However, we issued a letter noting that although we were not ordering appellant to rebrief, her appellate complaints might be deemed waived due to inadequate briefing. See, e.g., Lott v. First Bank, No. 04-13-0051-CV, 2014 WL 4922896, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 1, 2014, no pet.); Castillo v. Peeples, No. 04-13-00311-CV, 2014 WL 10898750, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 19, 2014, pet. denied). We set a due date of April 17, 2015, for appellee's brief.

In response to our letter, appellant has now filed motion for extension of time to file another amended brief. Appellant is asking this court to give her until May 4, 2015, to a second amended brief. We GRANT appellant's motion and ORDER that the second amended brief be filed in this court on or before May 4, 2015. APPELLANT IS ADVISED THAT NO FURTHER EXTENSIONs OF TIME TO FILE THE SECOND AMENDED BRIEF WILL BE GRANTED. IF THE SECOND AMENDED BRIEF IS NOT FILED IN THIS COURT ON OR BEFORE MAY 4, 2015, THE CASE WILL BE SUBMITTED UPON THE ORIGINAL AMENDED BRIEF FILED BY APPELLANT ON MARCH 18, 2015. Appellee's brief will be due thirty days after the date appellant's second amended brief is filed. If no amended brief is filed by May 4, 2015, appellee's brief will be due June 3, 2015.

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant and all counsel.

/s/_________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 16th day of April, 2015.

/s/_________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court


Summaries of

Ochoa v. Nail Flower Beauty Salon

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Apr 16, 2015
No. 04-14-00509-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 16, 2015)
Case details for

Ochoa v. Nail Flower Beauty Salon

Case Details

Full title:Gloria OCHOA, Appellant v. NAIL FLOWER BEAUTY SALON, Appellee

Court:Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

Date published: Apr 16, 2015

Citations

No. 04-14-00509-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 16, 2015)