Cherie Allen v. Bank of America, N.A. and Lenders Commercial Financial, LLC. Appeal from County Court at Law No. 3 of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-17-00414-CV CHERIE ALLEN APPELLANT V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. AND LENDERS COMMERCIAL FINANCIAL, LLC APPELLEES ---------FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 2017-006758-3 ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT -----------On June 28, 2018, we notified appellant that upon presubmission screening, it was determined that her brief did not comply with rules of appellate procedure 9.1, 9.4, and 38.1. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.1(c), 9.4(h), (i), (j)(1), 38.1(g), (i). We notified appellant that she would have until July 9, 2018, to file 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. an amended brief that complied with these rules and warned that failure to do so could result in our striking appellant’s brief and dismissing the appeal or the waiver of noncomplying points. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3. We also notified appellant that she was prohibited from raising additional or different points in the amended brief but that if she desired to file an amended brief that raised additional or different points, she had to first file a motion and obtain an order from this court permitting her to do so. Instead of timely filing an amended brief, on July 9, 2018, appellant filed a “Motion to Amend Brief to Raise Additional Points.” On July 12, 2018, we denied the motion and ordered appellant to file an amended brief that complied with this court’s June 28, 2018 letter. We stated that if she did not file an amended brief by July 16, 2018, we would strike appellant’s brief and dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. We have not received any response. “We liberally construe pro se briefs, but to ensure fairness in our treatment of all litigants, we hold pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys and require pro se litigants to follow the applicable laws and rules of procedure.” Branch v. Fannie Mae, No. 02-11-00355-CV, 2012 WL 3030525, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 26, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.). Because appellant has failed to file an amended brief after having been given an opportunity to do so and because she has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for said failure, we strike appellant’s brief and dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), (c), 43.2(f). 2 PER CURIAM PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ. DELIVERED: August 2, 2018 3
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.
