From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scott v. Armstrong

Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas
Apr 16, 2015
NO. 01-14-00319-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 16, 2015)

Opinion

NO. 01-14-00319-CV

04-16-2015

BEVERLY SCOTT, GWENDOLYN CARPENTER, DERRICK SCOTT, AND SAMMIE SCOTT, Appellants v. DR. ROBIN LYNN ARMSTRONG, CURTIS J. BICKERS, AND VUJASINOVIC & BECKCOM PLLC, Appellees


On Appeal from the 234th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2012-33615

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Eula Mae Scott passed away in January 2009. Her family, including her daughter, appellant Beverly Scott, filed a lawsuit nearly four years later, in November 2012. The lawsuit alleged various claims against various defendants, who filed summary-judgment motions asserting various defenses and affirmative defenses. Appellee Robin Lynn Armstrong, a medical doctor facing a wrongful-death claim, asserted a limitations defense. Appellees Curtis J. Bickers and Vujasinovic & Beckcom, PLLC, former attorneys for the Scott family, faced a breach-of-contract claim. Their summary-judgment motion disputed two elements of the contract claim, the existence of a valid contract, and breach. Summary judgment was granted in favor of all the appellees.

Several members of the Scott family filed a notice of appeal. In their appellate brief, they reiterate factual allegations contained in the trial-court pleadings, but they do not present any argument that summary judgment was incorrectly granted as to any appellee. Moreover, their brief does not comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1, including the necessity to state the issues presented and to make a clear and concise argument for their contentions with appropriate citations to legal authorities and the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1.

The appellants are Beverly Scott, Gwendolyn Carpenter, David Scott, and Sammie Scott. Only Beverly, Gwendolyn, and David signed the pro se appellants' brief.

Because pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys, see Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978), we must conclude that the appellants have waived any other grounds they may have intended to present for appellate review. See Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., 106 S.W.3d 118, 128 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied).

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. All pending motions are denied as moot.

Michael Massengale

Justice
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale.


Summaries of

Scott v. Armstrong

Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas
Apr 16, 2015
NO. 01-14-00319-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 16, 2015)
Case details for

Scott v. Armstrong

Case Details

Full title:BEVERLY SCOTT, GWENDOLYN CARPENTER, DERRICK SCOTT, AND SAMMIE SCOTT…

Court:Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas

Date published: Apr 16, 2015

Citations

NO. 01-14-00319-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 16, 2015)