Affirmed and Opinion Filed April 7, 2015
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-13-01595-CV
JUANITA GAROFALO, Appellant
V.
DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-03116-E
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill
Opinion by Justice Whitehill
Appellant Juanita Garofalo, pro se below and on appeal, sued appellee Dallas Area Rapid
Transit in justice court for property damage her pick-up truck suffered in a collision with a
DART bus. The justice court rendered a take-nothing judgment, and Garofalo appealed to the
county court at law. After a de novo bench trial, the county court rendered a take-nothing
judgment. Garofalo raises three appellate points of error. In her first two points, she complains
that the county court erred by discounting certain evidence at trial and by denying her new-trial
motion. In her third point, she contends the justice court erred by denying her motion for
reinstatement. We affirm.
Reinstatement of Justice Court Case
We address Garofalo’s third point of error first. She asserts that the justice court
rendered judgment against her because she failed to appear at trial, and that the justice court
erred by not granting her motion for reinstatement. We conclude that Garofalo’s third point of
error is moot because she was given a trial de novo by the county court at law. See Stevenson v.
Hous. Auth. of City of Austin, 385 S.W.3d 684, 687 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012, no pet.)
(complaint that justice court denied appellant due process was mooted by de novo trial in county
court); Coleman v. Bank of Am., Nat’l Ass’n, No. 06-11-00105-CV, 2012 WL 1940674, at *1
(Tex. App.—Texarkana May 30, 2012, no pet.) (complaints about justice-court default judgment
were mooted by de novo trial in county court). Accordingly, we overrule Garofalo’s third point
of error.
Refusal to Consider Evidence at Trial
Garofalo’s first point of error asserts that the county court erred by allegedly refusing to
consider certain evidence that she presented at trial. Although she cites two federal regulations
that purportedly require drug testing of mass-transit employees after certain kinds of accidents,
she does not explain their relevance to her point of error, and she cites no other authorities in
support of her first point of error. Nor does she support her first point of error with a cogent
argument demonstrating error. We conclude her first point of error is inadequately briefed and
therefore overrule it. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i); Garofalo v. Check Into Cash of Tex., LLC, No.
05-12-01193-CV, 2013 WL 3874537, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 24, 2013, pet. denied)
(mem. op.) (rejecting points of error as inadequately briefed); Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep.
Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895–96 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.) (explaining the
requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1).
–2–
Denial of Motion for New Trial Based on New Evidence
Garofalo’s second point of error asserts that the county court erred by denying her new-
trial motion. We review this ruling for abuse of discretion. Roberts v. Roper, 373 S.W.3d 227,
235 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.). Garofalo argues that she was entitled to a new trial to
present new evidence—a recorded statement by a witness who did not appear at trial. A party
seeking a new trial based on newly discovered evidence must show that (i) she did not discover
the evidence until after the trial, (ii) her failure to discover the evidence was not due to lack of
diligence, (iii) the evidence is not cumulative or merely for impeachment, and (iv) the evidence
is so material that it would probably produce a different result if a new trial were granted. Id.
Garofalo presents no argument that she satisfied the first two of these elements. We see nothing
in the record indicating that she satisfied those requirements. We hold that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion by denying Garofalo’s new-trial motion, so we overrule her second point of
error.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
131595F.P05
/Bill Whitehill/
BILL WHITEHILL
JUSTICE
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
JUANITA GAROFALO, Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at Law
No. 5, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-13-01595-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-03116-E.
Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill.
DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT, Justices Francis and Lang-Miers
Appellee participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that appellee DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT recover its costs of
this appeal from appellant JUANITA GAROFALO.
Judgment entered April 7, 2015.
–4–