From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2015CV00935
Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding
After his first brief was struck for being defective, Appellant Carlos Antonio Raymond, acting pro se, filed an amended brief. On August 7, 2017, Appellant moved for permission to file a supplemental brief and for an order to compel production of certain evidence. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.7; 4TH TEX. APP. (SAN ANTONIO) LOC R. 8.4. Appellee Pizza Venture filed responses opposing both motions.
Appellant's supplemental brief does not comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. It provides a plethora of factual assertions and complaints without being organized as required by Rule 38.1. It fails to provide "a clear and concise argument for the contentions made." Id. R. 38.1(i); cf. Canton-Carter v. Baylor Coll. of Med., 271 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
Appellant's motion to file this supplemental brief is DENIED; the putative supplemental brief is STRUCK. After Appellee files its brief, Appellant may file a reply brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.3. Appellant's reply brief must comply with the applicable rules. E.g., id. R. 38.1, 38.3.
Appellant's motion to compel production of records cites as authority a Kansas state statute pertaining to discovery. Further, Pizza Venture asserts that it has provided Appellant with each of the documents he seeks to compel. Appellant's motion to compel production is DENIED.
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 19th day of September, 2017.
KEITH E. HOTTLE,
Clerk of Court