GLORIA SALINAS YBARRA, FELIPE YBARRA JR., AND MELODY GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIENDS OR REPRESENTATIVES/HEIRS OF THE ESTATE OF ALYSSA YBARRA, DECEASED v. CHRISTUS SPOHN HOSPITAL BEEVILLE, CHRISTUS SPOHN HEALTH SYSTEM CORPORATION, RAYMOND LEWANDOWSKI JR., CHILDREN'S PHYSICIAN SERVICES OF SOUTH TEXAS D/B/A DRISCOLL CHILDREN'S GENETIC CENTER--Appeal from 36th District Court of Bee County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-10-00574-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ GLORIA SALINAS YBARRA, FELIPE YBARRA JR., AND MELODY GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIENDS OR REPRESENTATIVES/HEIRS OF THE ESTATE OF ALYSSA YBARRA, DECEASED, Appellants, v. CHRISTUS SPOHN HOSPITAL BEEVILLE, CHRISTUS SPOHN HEALTH SYSTEM CORPORATION, RAYMOND LEWANDOWSKI JR., CHILDREN'S PHYSICIAN SERVICES OF SOUTH TEXAS D/B/A DRISCOLL CHILDREN'S GENETIC CENTER, Appellees. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from 36th District Court of Bee County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam On September 14, 2011, appellant filed a brief that was not in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The brief failed generally to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(k). On October 27, 2011, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief failed to comply with Rule 38.1 (k) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure because it does not contain an appendix as required by Rule 38.1(k). See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. Appellant was directed to file an appendix in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure within ten days of the date of the letter, and notified that if an appendix was not filed, 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). Appellant failed to respond to the Court s notice. Accordingly, we strike appellant=s non-conforming brief and order the appeal 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 15th day of December, 2011. 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.
