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

Lawrence Jeanpierre v. Discover Bank

Docket 04-25-00627-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
04-25-00627-CV

Appeal from the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, dismissed for want of prosecution after appellant failed to file a compliant brief.

Summary

The Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed Lawrence Jeanpierre's appeal against Discover Bank for want of prosecution. Jeanpierre repeatedly missed the briefing deadline, filed a late brief and an amended brief that violated the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and failed to file a compliant second amended brief or request further extensions after the court struck his filings and set deadlines. Because he did not file a timely, compliant brief or request an extension, the court dismissed the appeal under the appellate rules permitting dismissal for failure to prosecute.

Issues Decided

  • Whether the appellant's failure to timely file a compliant appellate brief justified dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution.
  • Whether the court appropriately struck noncompliant briefs and set deadlines before dismissing the appeal.

Court's Reasoning

The court relied on the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure that allow dismissal when a party fails to prosecute an appeal by not filing required briefs. The appellant missed the original briefing deadline, filed late and noncompliant briefs that were stricken, and then failed to file a court-ordered compliant brief or seek further extension. Given those repeated failures and the court's prior warnings and orders, dismissal was appropriate under the rules cited.

Authorities Cited

  • Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1)
  • Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1
  • Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4
  • Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c)

Parties

Appellant
Lawrence Jeanpierre
Appellee
Discover Bank
Judge
Marisa Flores

Key Dates

Original brief due
2025-12-19
Late brief and motion for extension filed
2026-01-12
Amended brief filed
2026-03-02
Deadline to file amended brief
2026-03-06
Second amended brief deadline
2026-03-30
Decision filed
2026-04-22

What You Should Do Next

  1. 1

    Consult an appellate attorney immediately

    If the appellant wants to try to continue the appeal, they should consult counsel right away about possible motions to reinstate or for relief from dismissal and the standards for good cause.

  2. 2

    File a motion for reinstatement or to set aside dismissal (if eligible)

    Prepare and file any motion showing good cause for the missed deadlines and noncompliance, accompanied by affidavits or evidence, and do so within any applicable time limits.

  3. 3

    Review and comply with briefing rules

    If reinstated, ensure any brief strictly complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and court orders to avoid repeat dismissal.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does this decision mean?
The appeals court dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to file a timely and compliant brief and did not follow court orders, so the appellate review has ended for now.
Who is affected by the dismissal?
The appellant, Lawrence Jeanpierre, is directly affected because his appeal is dismissed; the appellee, Discover Bank, prevails in the appellate process unless the dismissal is reversed.
What happens next?
Generally, the dismissal ends this appeal; the appellant may have limited options to seek reinstatement or to appeal the dismissal if he can show good cause, but he must act promptly and follow procedural rules.
Why was the appeal dismissed rather than the court curing the brief problems?
The court struck multiple noncompliant filings, gave deadlines and warnings, and the appellant still did not file a compliant brief or request further extension, permitting dismissal under the appellate rules.

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. 04-25-00627-CV

                                      Lawrence JEANPIERRE,
                                             Appellant

                                                  v.

                                         DISCOVER BANK,
                                             Appellee

                     From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                  Trial Court No. 2024-CI-08002
                             Honorable Marisa Flores, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

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

Delivered and Filed: April 22, 2026

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

           Appellant’s brief was originally due on December 19, 2025. Appellant filed his brief late

along with a motion for extension of time to file his brief on January 12, 2026. After finding that

appellant’s brief flagrantly violated Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.1 and 9.4, we ordered

his brief stricken and that he file an amended brief on or before March 6, 2026.

           On March 2, 2026, appellant filed his amended brief which only cured some of the

violations mentioned in our order and ultimately violated Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.1
                                                                                       04-25-00627-CV


and 9.4. We again ordered appellant’s amended brief stricken and ordered appellant to file a second

amended brief on or before March 30, 2026, and warned appellant that his failure to file a

compliant brief could result in our striking his brief, prohibiting him from filing another brief, and

proceeding as if he had failed to file a brief.

        To date, appellant has not filed his brief or a motion for extension of time to file his brief.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1);

42.3(c).


                                                   PER CURIAM




                                                  -2-