Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 09-26-2022

Case Style:

Johnny Vasquez v. Sonia Sotello

Case Number: 04-21-00215-CV

Judge: PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice


Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Plaintiff's Attorney:

San Antonio, TX - Best Real Estate Lawyer Directory

Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.

Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement

MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.

MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge - 855-853-4800

Defendant's Attorney: Arnulfo Ortiz


San Antonio, Texas – Real Estate lawyer represented Appellant with a forcible detainer case.

In this appeal of a judgment in a forcible detainer case, no reporter’s record was taken.
After the clerk’s record was filed, Appellant filed his brief on November 24, 2021, but Appellant’s
brief did not comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 38.1. Specifically, the brief had, among others, the following defects:
• the Statement of Facts has no citations to the clerk’s record, contra id. R. 38.1(g); and
• the three-sentence Argument section does not contain any citations to authorities or to
the clerk’s record, contra id. R. 38.1(i).
- 2 -
We concluded that the defects described above constituted flagrant violations of Rule 38.
See id. R. 38.9(a). On November 30, 2021, we struck Appellant’s brief, and we ordered Appellant
to file an amended brief—that corrected all the noted defects and fully complied with the
applicable rules—not later than December 10, 2021. See, e.g., id. R. 9.4, 9.5, 38.1.
We cautioned Appellant that if the amended brief did not comply with our order, we could
“strike the brief, prohibit [Appellant] from filing another, and proceed as if [Appellant] had failed
to file a brief.” See id.R. 38.9(a); see also id. R. 38.8(a) (authorizing this court to dismiss an appeal
if an appellant fails to timely file a brief).

Outcome: On December 7, 2021, Appellant’s counsel filed a change of address letter, but otherwise Appellant has not filed any response to our November 30, 2021 order. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case