Villarreal v. Hernandez

PER CURIAM. Because it appeared that appellant, Irma Letty Villarreal, had abandoned this appeal by failing to file a brief or motion for extension of time, we ordered her to show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed. See Tex.R.App. P 74(l )(1). In a timely filed response, Villarreal stated that she wished to pursue this appeal but believed a brief was unnecessary because the sole issue decided 102 by the underlying summary judgment was the applicability of chapter 81 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. Villarreal contends this is a “straightforward, single-issue appeal,” yet she also contends this matter is one of “first impression” in an “emerging area of law.” The appellee, Hugo Hernandez, M.D., filed a motion for affirmance or dismissal under Tex.R.App. P 74(7 )(1), arguing that Villarreal’s explanation is unreasonable. We agree. Without a brief containing assigned error, we have nothing to review on appeal. Because Villarreal’s explanation is unreasonable, we dismiss this appeal. Tex.R.App. P 74(i)(l); see also Malone v. State Bar of Texas, 750 S.W.2d 295, 296 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1988, no writ); Seminole, Inc. v. Oak Hollow Property Owners’ Ass’n, 669 S.W.2d 872, 872 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1984, no writ).