RPM Services v. Maribel Mata Santana - Appeal Dismissed

Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 2, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

RPM Services v. Maribel Mata Santana, Jose Leonel Mata, Jr., Jose Leonel Mata, 181 South Homes Incorporated, Ricardo Canales

Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 06-26-00003-CV
• Nature of Suit: Seizure

• Disposition: Dismissed

• Opinion

• Authorities (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

Dismissed

Lead Opinion

In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-26-00003-CV

RPM SERVICES, Appellant

V.

MARIBEL MATA SANTANA, JOSE LEONEL MATA, JR., JOSE LEONEL MATA, 181
SOUTH HOMES INCORPORATED, RICARDO CANALES, Appellees

On Appeal from the 123rd District Court
Panola County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2018-232

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se Appellant, RPM Services (Appellant), filed a timely notice of appeal on

January 12, 2026. In its notice of appeal, Appellant indicated its intent to file an appendix in lieu

of a clerk’s record in accordance with Rule 34.5a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5a.

Appellant’s brief was originally due on February 18, 2026. On February 18, 2026,

Appellant filed its first motion for extension of time in which to file its brief. On February 24,

2026, the Court extended Appellant’s briefing deadline to March 11, 2026. On March 11, 2026,

Appellant submitted its purported appellate brief. That document was inadequate to serve as a

brief because it did not comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. Further, Appellant was required to, but did not, file a separate appendix in

accordance with Rule 34.5a. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5a.

On March 13, 2026, this Court sent Appellant a letter informing it of the aforementioned

deficiencies. We also explained to Appellant that it was required to file a revised brief, along

with a separate appendix, on or before March 27, 2026. The Court warned Appellant that the

failure to file an adequate brief and a separate appendix on or before March 27, 2026, would

subject this appeal to dismissal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b),

(c).

On March 27, 2026, Appellant filed a document entitled, “APPELLANT’S APPEAL OF

THE TACIT DENIAL OF HIS [sic] MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS

2
CITIZENS [sic] PARTICIPATION ACT (TCPA).” Much like the original document Appellant

submitted as its brief, the revised document also fails to comply with Rules 38.1 and 34.5a.

Consequently, pursuant to Rules 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(b), (c), we dismiss this appeal for

want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).

Scott E. Stevens
Chief Justice

Date Submitted: April 1, 2026
Date Decided: April 2, 2026

3