COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
NUMBER 13-11-00500-CV
CHARLES E. SMITH AND BETTY M. SMITH,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS TRUSTEES FOR
THE SMITH FAMILY TRUST, Appellants,
v.
ARAMARK CORPORATION, Appellee.
NUMBER 13-11-00708-CV
CHARLES E. SMITH AND BETTY M. SMITH,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES FOR
THE SMITH FAMILY TRUST, Appellants,
v.
LONG ISLAND VILLAGE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
F/K/A OUTDOOR RESORTS/SOUTH PADRE OWNER'S
ASSOCIATION, INC. AND PAST AND PRESENT BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF LONG ISLAND OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC. F/K/A OUTDOOR RESORTS/SOUTH
PADRE OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 445th District Court
of Cameron County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
The appellants’ brief in the above causes was due on February 27, 2013. On
March 26, 2013, a motion for extension of time to file the brief was received, and on March
27, 2013, the extension was granted until April 22, 2013. The appellants’ brief was
received on April 26, 2013, but was not in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure. On May 1, 2013, appellant was directed to file an amended brief that
complies with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4(e), 9.4(i)(3) and 38.1(k), and a
motion for leave.
Appellants did not file a brief and on May 30, 2013, the Clerk of the Court notified
appellant that the brief failed to comply with Rule 9.4 (e), 9.4(i)(3), and 38.1(k). See
generally TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(e), 9.4(i)(3) and 38.1(k). A brief produced on a computer, is
required to be printed in a conventional typeface no smaller than 14-point except for
footnotes, which must be no smaller than 12-point. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4 (e).
Appellants’ brief is not printed in typeface at least 14-point as required by Rule 9.4(e),
does not contain a certificate of compliance stating the number of words in the document
as required by Rule 9.4 (i)(3), and does not contain an appendix as required by Rule
38.1(k). See Id. 9.4(e), 9.4(i)(3), 38.1(k).
Appellants were directed to file an amended brief in compliance with the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure within ten days of the date of the letter, and notified that if
2
the Court received another brief that did not comply, the Court may strike the brief,
prohibit appellant from filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief,
under which circumstances the Court may affirm the judgment or dismiss the appeal.
See id. 38.9(a), 42.3(b),(c). Appellants have failed to respond to the Court’s notice.
If the appellate court determines that the briefing rules have been flagrantly
violated, it may require a brief to be amended, supplemented, or redrawn. TEX. R. APP.
P. 38.9(a); see id. R. 44.3 (“A court of appeals must not affirm or reverse a judgment or
dismiss an appeal for formal defects or irregularities in appellate procedure without
allowing a reasonable time to correct or amend the defects or irregularities.”). A
reasonable time is given to an appellant when he is provided with an opportunity to
amend his brief. See Fredonia State Bank v. General Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279,
284 (Tex. 1994). If the appellant files another brief that does not comply with the rules of
appellate procedure, the appellate court may strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing
another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief. 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, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Id. R.
38.8(a).
Accordingly, we strike appellants’ non-conforming brief and order the appeals
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a),
42.3(b), (c).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
11th day of July, 2013.
3