Live courthouse data across 10 states. Pro users get alerted instantly on every filing. Get started

Latoya Lavasiee Hopkins v. Woodlake Trails

Docket 04-26-00019-CV

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilDismissed
Filed
Jurisdiction
Texas
Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
Type
Lead Opinion
Case type
Civil
Disposition
Dismissed
Docket
04-26-00019-CV

Appeal from a decision of the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas; court reviewed appellant's failure to prosecute the appeal.

Summary

The Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed Latoya Lavasiee Hopkins’s appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County for want of prosecution because she repeatedly failed to file her appellate brief or request extensions despite notices and a court order. The appellate court gave deadlines and warnings under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure but Hopkins did not respond. Because she did not comply with the court’s order to file a brief by the specified date, the court exercised its authority to dismiss the appeal.

Issues Decided

  • Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellant failed to timely file an appellate brief or seek extensions.
  • Whether the appellate court may dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with a court order under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Court's Reasoning

The court relied on the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure that allow dismissal when an appellant fails to file a brief and does not comply with court orders. The clerk notified the appellant of the late brief and the court issued a specific order with a deadline and a warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal. Because the appellant did not file the brief, a motion for extension, or respond to the order by the deadline, dismissal for want of prosecution was appropriate.

Authorities Cited

  • Texas Rules of Appellate ProcedureTEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1)
  • Texas Rules of Appellate ProcedureTEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c)

Parties

Appellant
Latoya Lavasiee Hopkins
Appellee
Woodlake Trails
Judge
Cesar Garcia

Key Dates

Opinion filed
2026-04-15
Original brief due date
2026-02-20
Court order to file brief by
2026-03-27
Court order sent
2026-03-17

What You Should Do Next

  1. 1

    Consult an attorney immediately

    An attorney can evaluate options for seeking reinstatement of the appeal or other post-judgment relief and advise on deadlines and required filings.

  2. 2

    File a motion for reinstatement or for leave to file late brief

    If eligible, the appellant should promptly prepare and file a motion explaining the reasons for the failure to file and showing good cause and diligence.

  3. 3

    Preserve the record and any deadlines

    Gather the trial-court record, notices, and any evidence explaining the delay to support any motion and act quickly to meet any procedural windows for relief.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does this dismissal mean?
The appeal is ended because the appellant did not file required documents or follow the court's order; the trial court's judgment stands unless the appellant successfully seeks reinstatement or other relief.
Who is affected by this decision?
The appellant, Latoya Lavasiee Hopkins, is directly affected because her appeal has been dismissed; the appellee, Woodlake Trails, benefits from the dismissal because the underlying judgment will remain in effect.
What happened to the appellant's right to appeal?
The appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute; the appellant may have limited options to reinstate the appeal if she shows good cause and moves promptly under applicable rules.
Can this dismissal be appealed or reversed?
Dismissals for want of prosecution can sometimes be challenged by a motion for reinstatement or other post-judgment relief in the appellate court, but relief is discretionary and typically requires a prompt showing of good cause for the default.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text
Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                         No. 04-26-00019-CV

                                     Latoya Lavasiee HOPKINS,
                                              Appellant

                                                   v.

                                       WOODLAKE TRAILS,
                                           Appellee

                      From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas
                                  Trial Court No. 2025-CV-09005
                              Honorable Cesar Garcia, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
                  Irene Rios, Justice
                  Velia J. Meza, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 15, 2026

DISSMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

           Appellant’s brief was originally due on February 20, 2026. After neither appellant’s brief

nor a motion for extension of time was filed, the clerk of this court sent appellant a notice of late

brief. Again, appellant failed to file her brief or a motion for extension of time. On March 17, 2025,

we ordered appellant to file her brief in this court on or before March 27, 2026, and warned her

that failure to do so could result in her appeal being dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1) (allowing appellate courts to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution when
                                                                                         04-26-00019-CV


an appellant fails to timely file a brief); see also id. R. 42.3(c) (allowing appellate courts to dismiss

an appeal when an appellant fails to comply with a court order).

        To date, appellant has not responded to our order nor filed her brief or a motion for

extension of time. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(c).


                                                    PER CURIAM




                                                  -2-