Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jesus Angel Barrera appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont from a final judgment of the 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas. The trial cause number was 25-06-10146, and the appellate docket number was 09-26-00142-CV. Barrera filed his notice of appeal on March 26, 2026. LVNV Funding LLC was the appellee. The memorandum opinion does not describe the underlying dispute, the terms of the final judgment, or the particular trial court rulings that Barrera may have intended to challenge.
On September 22, 2026, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified the parties that Barrera had not filed a brief. The clerk advised that the appeal would be submitted without briefs unless, by Friday, October 2, 2026, Barrera filed both a brief and a motion to extend the deadline for filing his brief. The court also warned Barrera that, if it submitted the appeal without briefs, it could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. The opinion does not state that Barrera filed either document by that deadline or explain why he did not file a brief.
On October 8, 2026, the clerk notified the parties that the appeal would be submitted to the court on Thursday, October 29, 2026, without briefs and without oral argument. The court cited Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 39.8 in connection with that submission procedure. The case was submitted on October 29, and the per curiam memorandum opinion was delivered on November 5, 2026, before Golemon, C.J., and Johnson and Chambers, JJ.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed Barrera’s appeal for want of prosecution. Its stated reason was specific to the procedural condition of this appeal: Barrera had not filed a brief assigning error to any of the trial court’s rulings. The court cited Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), and 43.2(f) in support of the dismissal. It did not identify or evaluate any alleged error in the trial court, and it did not discuss the merits of the underlying judgment.
The opinion therefore resolves the appeal on a briefing and prosecution basis, not by affirming the final judgment after substantive review. The September notice had supplied an opportunity to avoid submission without briefs by filing both a brief and a motion for an extension by October 2. It had also expressly warned of the possibility of dismissal for want of prosecution. The October notice then established that submission would occur without briefs and without oral argument. Against that procedural background, the court applied the cited appellate rules to Barrera’s failure to present any assignments of error through an appellate brief.
The disposition is stated in the opinion as “APPEAL DISMISSED.” No other claim, party, or issue is decided in the memorandum opinion. The ruling should not be characterized as a determination that any particular trial court ruling was correct, because the court’s express rationale was the absence of a brief assigning error to any such ruling.
Key Takeaways
- The Ninth District dismissed Barrera’s appeal for want of prosecution because he had not filed a brief assigning error to any trial court ruling.
- The September 22 notice required both a brief and a motion to extend the briefing deadline by October 2 to avoid submission without briefs, and it warned that dismissal could follow.
- The appeal was submitted on October 29, 2026, without briefs and without oral argument, with Rule 39.8 cited for the submission procedure.
- The dismissal was procedural; the opinion contains no merits analysis of the final judgment or the underlying dispute.
Why It Matters
The opinion is a direct illustration of the appellate consequences of failing to file a brief after receiving a deficiency notice and an express warning. The court did not treat the absence of briefing merely as a reason to proceed without assistance from the appellant. Instead, it dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution under the rules it cited, after providing a stated deadline and identifying the two filings required to avoid submission without briefs.
For practitioners, the decision also underscores the importance of describing the disposition accurately. This was not an affirmance or a merits endorsement of the trial court’s rulings. It was a dismissal based on Barrera’s failure to file a brief assigning error, following notices that addressed both the briefing deficiency and the procedures for submission and oral argument.