Zulema Garza v. Zulema J. Garza, Jose Juan Garza, III, Andres Garza, Alejandro Garza, and Gabriel Garza Appeal from 49th Judicial District Court of Webb County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-21-00114-CV Zulema GARZA, Appellant v. Zulema J. GARZA, Jose Juan Garza, III, Andres Garza, Alejandro Garza, and Gabriel Garza, Appellees From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020-CVK-002209-D1 Honorable Joe Lopez, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 29, 2021 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION This is an accelerated appeal of an order granting a temporary injunction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1(a); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(4). Appellant’s brief was originally due June 23, 2021 and was not filed. On July 15, 2021, appellant filed a motion requesting an extension of time until July 30, 2021 to file her brief, which we granted. On July 30, 2021, appellant filed a brief she referred to as “incomplete,” along with a motion requesting a two-week extension of time to file the remaining portions of her brief. We again granted appellant’s motion for extension of time and ordered her to file her brief by August 19, 2021. In our order, we 04-21-00114-CV cautioned appellant, who is pro se, that her brief must comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and that a non-compliant brief was subject to being stricken by the court. On August 23, 2021, appellant filed a brief. On August 25, 2021, we struck appellant’s brief for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and we ordered appellant to file an amended brief by September 14, 2021. Our order stated, “If appellant does not file an amended brief that complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure by the date stated in this order, we will dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). Appellant did not file an amended brief in accordance with our August 25 order. Instead, she requested an additional one-month extension of time to file her brief. On September 16, 2021, appellees filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on the grounds that appellant did not comply with our August 25 order. See id. R. 42.3(c). Because appellee did not timely file an amended brief, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). Appellees’ motion to dismiss and appellant’s motion for extension of time are denied as moot. PER CURIAM -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
