                                                                         ACCEPTED
                                                                    04014-00729-CV
                                                         FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
                                                              SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
                                                               2/4/2015 12:03:46 PM
                                                                      KEITH HOTTLE
                                                                             CLERK

              NO. 04014-00729-CV

                                                    FILED IN
                                             4th COURT OF APPEALS
                                              SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
               IN THE                        02/4/2015 12:03:46 PM
      FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS                    KEITH E. HOTTLE
         SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS                           Clerk


       JEREMIAH TROMBLY,
            Appellant,
               V.
   DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
             Appellee

Appeal from the 198th Judicial District Court,
          Bandera County, Texas
      Trial Court No. CV-14-0000304

              APPELLEE’S BRIEF
              FEBRUARY 4, 2015


               RICHARD L. DURBIN, JR.
               ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

        By:    /s/Robert Shaw-Meadow
               ROBERT SHAW-MEADOW
               Assistant United States Attorney
               Texas Bar No. 18162475
               601 N.W. Loop 410, Suite 600
               San Antonio, Texas 78216
               Telephone: (210) 384-7355
               Facsimile: (210) 384-7312
               Rob.shaw-meadow@usdoj.gov
               ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
                 IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Judge Presiding at Trial:

The Honorable M. Rex Emerson
198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas

Plaintiff and Appellant:

JEREMIAH TROMBLY

Defendant and Appellee:

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

Appellee’s Counsel on Appeal:

Robert Shaw-Meadow
Assistant United State Attorney
601 NW Loop 410, Suite 600
San Antonio, Texas 78216

Defendant’s Trial Counsel:

No appearance necessary or made




                                        i
                                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL .............................................................i

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................iv

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..................................................................................2

ORAL ARGUMENT .................................................................................................2

ISSUES PRESENTED ON APPEAL........................................................................ 2

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................3

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................................................................4

ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................5

Issue No. 1- Trombly has failed to file a brief in compliance with the Texas
Appellate Rules and thus any issues raised are waived due to inadequate
briefing .......................................................................................................................5
   A. Trombly’s Brief Fails Because It Contains No Record Citations ................... 6
   B. Trombly’s Appeal Should be Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
       Because He Has Failed to Provide Any Argument Setting Out What
       Errors Were Allegedly Committed By the Trial Court. Tex R. App. P.
       38.1(5), (8) ......................................................................................................8

Issue No. 2- The trial court’s decision dismissing Trombly’s Petition for
review for lack of jurisdiction should be affirmed ..................................................11
   A. Trombly’s Petition for Review Was 17 Days Too Late ................................13
   B. Trombly’s Petition for Review Failed to Name or Serve the Texas
      Workforce Commission as a Necessary Party...............................................15



                                                               ii
PRAYER ..................................................................................................................17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................18

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................18




                                                            iii
                                    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

State Cases

Barrack v. Washington Mutual, No. 14-05-01220-CV,
  2007 WL 1215784 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
  Apr. 26, 2007, no pet.) ........................................................................................12

Berardinelli v. Pickels, No. 05-12-01390-CV,
  2014 WL 6560029 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 23, 2014, no pet.) ........................10

Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893
  (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.)............................................................. 7, 9, 11

Canton-Carter v. Baylor College of Medicine, 271 S.W.3d 928
  (Tex. App. —Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) ................................................9

Castillo v. Peeples, No. 04-13-00311-CV, 2014 WL 1089750
  (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 19, 2014, pet. denied) ..................................7, 10

Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279 (Tex. 1994)..........9

Hernandez v. Tex. Workforce Comm’n, No. 01-09-01085-CV,
  2011 WL 346291 (Tex. App. Houston—[1st Dist.] Feb. 3, 2011,
  no pet.)(mem. op.) ........................................................................................ 14, 16

Hornbuckle v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 02-12-00223-CV,
  2013 WL 452183 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 7, 2013, pet. denied) ..............10

Lockard v. Deitch, 855 S.W. 2d 104
  (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1993, no writ) .........................................................15

Lott v. First Bank, No. 04-13-00531-CV, 2014 WL 4922896
   (Tex. App.—San Antonio, Oct. 1, 2014, no pet.) ...............................................10


                                                        iv
Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. 1978) ..................................11

Marin Real Estate Partner v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57
 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2011, no pet.) .........................................................6, 10

Petty v. Petty, No. 13-14-00051-CV, 2014 WL 5500459
   (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Oct. 30, 2014, no pet.) ..........................................10

Prairie View A&M Univ. v. Chathra, 381 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. 2012) .......................14

Richardson v. Tex. Workforce Comm’n, 2014 WL 2538621
   (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014 pet. denied) ...........................................14

Stoker v. Tex. Workforce Comm’n, 402 S.W.3d 926
   (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.)......................................................................16

Tex. Workforce Comm’n v. Smith, No. 14-11-00003-CV, 2011 WL 4507077
   (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 29, 2011, no pet.)(mem. op.) .............14

Valadez v. Auitia, 238 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.–El Paso 2007, no pet.) ..............4, 10

Villages of Greenbriar v. Torres, 874 S.W.2d 259
   (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied) .........................................14

State Rules

Tex. R. App. P. 9.5(d), and (3) ..................................................................................6

Tex. R. App. P. 38.1...............................................................................................5, 7

Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a) ............................................................................................10

Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a) ..............................................................................................6

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b) ............................................................................................10

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c) ............................................................................................10


                                                          v
Statutes

Texas Labor Code § 212.201 ...................................................................... 12, 13, 15

Texas Labor Code § 212.206 ............................................................................ 15, 16


Other Authorities

40 Tex. Admin. Code § 815.17 ..................................................................................8




                                                       vi
                                  NO. 04014-00729-CV



                                   IN THE
                          FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
                             SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

                          JEREMIAH TROMBLY,
                               Appellant,
                                  V.
                      DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
                                Appellee

                   Appeal from the 198th Judicial District Court,
                             Bandera County, Texas
                         Trial Court No. CV-14-0000304

                                APPELLEE’S BRIEF

       The Department of the Air Force hereby submits its Appellee’s Brief, in

response to the January 1, 2015 Brief for Appellants. For clarity, Appellee will be

referred to as “the Air Force” and Appellant will be referred to as “Trombly.”

Citation to the Clerk’s Record and the Clerk’s 1st Supplemental Record will be

abbreviated as (CR_____) and (SCR ____).1 Citation to Appellee’s Appendix

will be (AF APPX ___).



1
 For the Court’s convenience, the Clerk’s Record and Supplemental Record are attached in the
Air Force’s Appendix. The Clerk’s Records received by the Air Force were not numbered. The
Air Force has added page numbers in the Appendix in the bottom right corner. These page
numbers refer to the page numbers in the respective pdf files. Four items are included in the
Appendix: 1) Clerk’s Record; 2) Clerk’s 1st Supplemental Record; 3) Texas Labor Code
excerpts; and, 4) Court’s Order of November 25, 2014; and 5) Clerk’s letter dated December 29,
2014.
                                              1
                            STATEMENT OF THE CASE

       This is an appeal challenging a decision by the 198th District Court

dismissing Jeremiah Trombly’s Petition for Review from a ruling by the Texas

Workforce Commission (“TWC”) denying                  him unemployment compensation

benefits. (AF APPX 1, CR 4-5). The trial court sua sponte dismissed the case for

lack of jurisdiction because it was untimely and all necessary parties had not been

properly served. (AF APPX 1, CR 10).

                                  ORAL ARGUMENT

       Oral argument is not requested. The Air Force does not believe it would

benefit the Court.

                        ISSUES PRESENTED ON APPEAL 2

ISSUE NUMBER 1:

       Trombly has failed to comply with the appellate briefing rules and thus has

waived any argument on appeal.




2
 The issues Trombly attempts to present in his brief should not be reached by the Court because
they address the underlying merits of the TWC’s determination to deny benefits, and are not
supported by any evidence or record citations. See Brief for Appellant, p. v. Although there is
nothing in the record regarding the underlying TWC proceedings, the Air Force adamantly
denies that it committed perjury or misled Trombly in settlement negotiations as alleged.
                                              2
ISSUE NUMBER 2:

      The trial court was correct in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction and

the decision should be affirmed.

                           STATEMENT OF FACTS

      On September 26, 2014, Trombly filed a Petition for Review of an August

12, 2014, unemployment compensation decision from the TWC and served a copy

of the petition on the Air Force by mail. The TWC was not served. (AF APPX 1,

CR 4-5). On October 9, 2014, the district court dismissed the petition for want of

jurisdiction, finding that the Petition “was not timely filed and that all necessary

parties were not served.” (AF APPX 1, CR 10). Trombly initiated this appeal on

October 29, 2014, alleging he was entitled to a review of the benefits denial

decision by the TWC. (AF APPX 1, CR 11).

      Trombly filed his [first] appellate brief on November 24, 2014.            On

November 25, 2014, this Court ordered the brief stricken for Trombly’ s multiple

violations of Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. Trombly was ordered to file an amended brief

in compliance with the applicable rules by December 29, 2014. (See Order of

November 25, 2014) (AF APPX 4).

      Trombly filed his [second] brief on December 29, 2014. This second brief

was verbatim identical to the brief he filed on November 24. Also on December

29, 2014, the Clerk notified Trombly that this brief was deficient, but did not order


                                         3
rebriefing. Trombly was again put on notice that this Court could consider his

appellate complaints “waived due to inadequate briefing if the noted deficiencies

are not corrected prior to submission.” On January 1, 2015, Trombly filed his third

and final “Brief for Appellants.”


                             SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

      This Court should summarily affirm the trial court’s dismissal because

Trombly has failed to comply with clearly settled appellate briefing rules; because

Trombly has admitted that his Petition for Review was untimely; and, because

Trombly failed to name or serve the TWC as a necessary party.

      The Court has given Trombly three bites at the apple and he still has not

complied with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.             Notwithstanding his

unrepresented status, “the law is clear that pro se litigants are held to the same

standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable rules of

procedure, including the rules governing appellate briefs.” (Order of November

25, 2014) (citing Valadez v. Auitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.–El Paso

2007, no pet.) (AF APPX 4).         Trombly’s brief is deficient, inter alia, because it

does not once cite the record, and because he has failed to provide any argument

setting out what error was committed by the District Court. Rather, it is apparent

that Trombly wishes to improperly use this appellate forum to raise issues which

should have been raised to the District Court.          Having failed to timely and
                                            4
effectively present these issues to the District Court, Trombly may not raise them

for the first time on appeal.

      In the alternative, and only if the Court rules that Trombly has not waived all

issues on appeal because of his deficient briefing, the Court should affirm the

198th District Court’s decision that Trombly’s untimely filing and failure to serve

the TWC deprived it of jurisdiction.

                                   ARGUMENT

Issue No. 1 - Trombly has failed to file a brief in compliance with the Texas

Appellate Rules and thus any issues raised are waived due to inadequate briefing.

      In its Order of November 25, 2014, the Court found, inter alia, that

Trombly’s submission flagrantly violated Tex. R. App. P. 38.1 because it did not

include:

      (5) a brief statement of facts of the issues presented setting out
         what errors were allegedly committed by the trial court;

      (6) include a statement of facts with record references;

      (8) argument with appropriate citation to authorities and
         the appellate record; [or]

      (10) an appendix

(Order of November 25, 2014, p. 1) (emphasis added) (AF APPX 4).




                                          5
      The Court further found that Trombly’s brief was deficient because a

certificate of service was not included as required by Rule 9.5(d), and (3). (Id. at p.

2). Trombly was specifically warned that:

             If the amended brief does not comply with this order we
             ‘may strike the brief, prohibit (appellant) from filing
             another, and proceed as if (appellant) had failed to file a
             brief.’ …R. 38.9(a) … Even if we do not strike the brief
             and prohibit appellant from filing another brief, we may
             find that any issues raised by appellant are waived due to
             inadequate briefing, and overrule those issues. See, e.g.,
             Marin Real Estate Partner v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75
             (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2011, no pet.) …

             [W]e cannot discern from appellant’s brief the nature of
             the action, the relief granted or denied below, nor the
             exact nature of the complaints appellant is asserting on
             appeal.

(Order of November 25, 2014, at p. 2).

      Although Trombly corrected some of the deficiencies enumerated in the

Court’s Order of November 25, 2014, the January 1, 2015 Brief for Appellants

does not include a Certificate of Service; an Appendix; an explanation for how the

trial court committed error, or any citation to the record. This last failure, standing

alone, warrants dismissal of the appeal.

             A.     Trombly’s Brief Fails Because It Contains
                    No Record Citations.

      The record in this case consists solely of 25 pages -- an 18 page record

submitted by the District Clerk on October 24, 2014, and a 7 page Supplemental


                                           6
Record submitted on November 3, 2014 (See AF APPX 1 and 2). Not a single

citation to the record is contained in the Brief for Appellants, or in Trombly’s first

two submissions.

      In Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.), Plaintiffs were also proceeding pro se, and were

attempting to challenge the assessment of delinquent property taxes. Although the

Bollings’ appellate brief contained several record citations, the appeal was

nevertheless dismissed for failure to comply with the briefing requirements of the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure:

      [To comply with rule 38.1], statements of fact must be supported by
      direct references to the record that are precise in locating the fact
      asserted. If record references are not made or are inaccurate,
      misstated or misleading, the brief fails.

315 S.W.3d at 896. See also Castillo v. Peeples, No. 04-13-00311-CV, 2014 WL

1089750, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 19, 2014, pet. denied) (“[D]espite

two specific warnings from this court about the lack of citation to the record and its

possible consequences, Castillo failed to include even a single citation to the

appellate record. Accordingly, we hold his complaint is inadequately briefed, and

therefore, waived.”).




                                          7
             B.    Trombly’s Appeal Should be Dismissed for
                   Want of Prosecution Because He Has Failed
                   to Provide Any Argument Setting Out What
                   Errors Were Allegedly Committed By the
                   Trial Court. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(5),(8).

      This is the more fundamental flaw in Trombly’s appeal. As the Court

observed on November 25, “we cannot discern from appellant’s brief the nature of

the action, the relief granted or denied below, nor the exact nature of the

complaints appellant is asserting on appeal.” (Order of November 25, 2014, at p.

2) (AF APPX 4). After two further submissions, it is now clear that this action

involves the denial of unemployment compensations benefits, but Mr. Trombly has

utterly failed to set forth how the trial court committed any alleged errors.

      Trombly refers to “40 TAC 815.17” on page v of his Brief regarding the

standard of review for a motion for rehearing, but he fails to state what the trial

court did in error or why the trial court’s decision should be reversed.

Furthermore, Trombly’s disagreement with what transpired at his subsequent

federal Merit System Protection Board hearing has nothing to do with his untimely

Petition for Review in the Texas trial court.

      Indeed, Trombly’s only mention of the action taken by the 198th District

Court appears on page vi of his final Brief:

             The District Court …summarily… dismissed the matter due to
             a time frame that was not met. The petition to the District
             Court indicated extenuating circumstances existed in that the


                                          8
             …Air Force…offered to ‘settle the matter…, delaying any
             timely filing [of the Petition for Review].’

      Nowhere does Trombly indicate that the District Court’s dismissal on

timeliness grounds, was error, however. Nor does Trombly even argue that the

District Court had any discretion or authority to excuse his untimely filing or his

failure to serve a necessary party. The standard of review referenced by Trombly

sets forth the standard for how the TWC may grant a rehearing, and not how the

198th District Court should have reviewed Trombly’s appeal from the TWC

decision.

      The appellant “must articulate the issue [the appellate court is] be[ing] asked

to decide,” and the Court must be able to “discern what question of law [it] will be

answering.” Bollling¸315 S.W.3d at 896. It is not the duty of this Court to search

the record for facts that may be favorable to Trombly’s position. See Fredonia

State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 283-84 (Tex. 1994) (cited

with approval in Bolling). Nor is this Court responsible for identifying possible

trial court error. Canton-Carter v. Baylor College of Medicine, 271 S.W.3d 928,

931 (Tex. App. —Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (also cited with approval in

Bolling).

      In this case, there can be no question that Trombly has filed a deficient final

brief. The Court and the Clerk of the Court sent Trombly notification that his prior

briefs were deficient. Specific deficiencies -- including Trombly’s failure to cite a
                                         9
single reference to the record or any argument about how the record supports his

issues – were pointed out. See Order of November 25, 2014 at p. 2 (APPX 4);

Clerk’s Letter of December 29, 2014 (APPX 5). Similar failures have resulted in

several courts dismissing appeals under Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b) and

42.3(c). See, e.g., Petty v. Petty, No. 13-14-00051-CV, 2014 WL 5500459, at *2

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Oct. 30, 2014, no pet.); Berardinelli v. Pickels, No.

05-12-01390-CV, 2014 WL 6560029, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 23, 2014, no

pet.); Hornbuckle v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 02-12-00223-CV, 2013 WL

452183 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 7, 2013, pet. denied).

      Relatedly, because Trombly has failed to comply with the Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure, the Court Order and the Clerk’s instruction, such failure

operates as a waiver of any issue on appeal, and this appeal should be dismissed

for want of prosecution under Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b) and Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

See, e.g., Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no

pet.); Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (inadequate briefing waives the issue); Lott v. First

Bank, No. 04-13-00531-CV, 2014 WL 4922896, at *2 and *4 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio, Oct. 1, 2014, no pet.); Castillo v. Peeples, No. 04-13-00311-CV, 2014

WL 1089750, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, Mar. 19, 2014, pet. denied).




                                        10
      Trombly’s pro se status does not rescue his appeal from dismissal. A party

to civil litigation in Texas has the right to represent himself at trial and on appeal.

Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895. But this right carries with it the responsibility to

adhere to rules of evidence and procedure, including the rules of appellate

procedure if the party chooses to represent himself at the appellate level. See

Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-185 (Tex. 1978); Bolling,

315 S.W.3d at 895. Courts regularly caution pro-se litigants -- as has this Court

repeatedly -- that they will not be treated differently from a party who is

represented by a licensed attorney. See Mansfield, 573 S.W.2d at 184-85; Bolling,

315 S.W.3d at 895.

      Under these circumstances, where the Court cannot discern what questions

of law it will be answering, and it must speculate about what contentions are being

made, the brief fails and must be dismissed for failure to comply with the appellate

rules. Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 896, 897.

Issue No. 2 – The trial court’s decision dismissing Trombly’s Petition for Review

for lack of jurisdiction should be affirmed.

      As set forth in the Air Force’s Summary of Argument, there is no need for

the Court to even reach this second issue because Trombly failed to comply with

appellate briefing rules. Moreover, since Trombly has failed to file a brief in

substantial compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, this Court


                                          11
may regard the Air Force’s brief as correctly presenting the case. Barrack v.

Washington Mutual, No. 14-05-01220-CV, 2007 WL 1215784, at *2 (Tex.App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 26, 2007, no pet.).

      If the Court deems it necessary to review the District Court’s decision,

however, it should be affirmed for two reasons: A) Trombly’s Petition for Review

was untimely; and, B) The Petition for Review failed to name or serve the TWC as

a necessary party.

      Trombly’s final brief on appeal does not address the second issue at all, and

only quickly mentions the timeliness issue. Trombly admits his Petition was late,

fails to make any argument that the District erred in its jurisdictional ruling, and

only claims – without citation to the record or to case authority – that the Air

Force’s alleged settlement offer presented “extenuating circumstances” which

justified his late filing. (See Appellants’ Brief at p. vi, quoted at pp. 8-9, supra).

      It is undisputed that on September 26, 2014, Trombly filed a Petition for

Review of a decision issued by the TWC on August 12, 2014. (AF APPX 1, CR

4). Trombly provided a copy of the Petition to the Air Force, but did not serve the

TWC. (AF APPX 1, CR 5).           On October 9, 2014, the 198th Judicial District

Court, citing Texas Labor Code Chapter 212, dismissed Trombly’s Petition as

untimely filed and not for serving all the necessary parties, thereby depriving the

Court of jurisdiction. (AF APPX 1, CR 10).


                                            12
              A.    Trombly’s Petition for Review
                    Was 17 Days Too Late.

        Texas Labor Code § 212.201(a) states:      “A party aggrieved by a final

decision of the commission may obtain judicial review of the decision by bringing

an action in a court of competent jurisdiction for review of the decision against the

commission on or after the date on which the decision is final, and not later than

the 14th day after that date.”

        According to Trombly’s Petition for Review (AF APPX 1, CR 4), TWC

issued its decision on or about August 12, 2014. TWC’s decision became final 14

days thereafter, on August 26, 2014. Accordingly, Trombly’s deadline to file the

Petition for Review expired September 9, 2014. Trombly did not file his Petition

for Review until September 26, 2014 (AF APPX 1, CR 4), which was 17 days too

late.

        Trombly has admitted repeatedly that the Petition for Review was untimely

filed with the District Court. (See, e.g., Brief for Appellants at p. vi; AF APPX 1,

CR 8). Without citing any authority, Trombly’s only argument with regard to

timeliness is that “extenuating circumstances” excused his late filing: “the Air

Force had offered to independently settle the matter, but then failed to provide a

written settlement, delaying any timely filing.” (Brief for Appellants at p. vi; see

also Petition for Review, AF APPX 1, CR 11).



                                         13
      Numerous Texas courts have affirmed the dismissal of challenges to the

denial of unemployment compensation benefits where the district court suit is not

filed within the statutory 14-day period. See, e.g., Richardson v. Tex. Workforce

Comm’n, 2014 WL 2538621, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014 pet.

denied) (“Failure to meet the jurisdictional requirements of section 212.201

precludes a movant from seeking judicial review of a TWC decision.”) (citing, e.g.,

Prairie View A&M Univ. v. Chathra, 381 S.W.3d 500, 514-15 (Tex. 2012)); Tex.

Workforce Comm’n v. Smith, No. 14-11-00003-CV, 2011 WL 4507077, at *2 (Tex.

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 29, 2011, no pet.)(mem. op.) (“’If the fourteen

days expire and the plaintiff has failed to file a petition for judicial review, the

Commission’s decision becomes final and unappealable.”); Hernandez v. Tex.

Workforce Comm’n, No. 01-09-01085-CV, 2011 WL 346291, at * 1 (Tex. App.

Houston— [1st Dist.] Feb. 3, 2011, no pet.)(mem. op.) (“Failure to comply with

section 212.201 deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the suit.”).

      Although Trombly has presented no case law suggesting that equitable

tolling can apply to extend his filing deadline because of the Air Force’s alleged

conduct during settlement negotiations, even assuming that the 14-day deadline

could be tolled, such an argument would fail, and has not been supported. See,

e.g., Villages of Greenbriar v. Torres, 874 S.W.2d 259, 264 (Tex. App.—Houston

[1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (in order to avoid limitations defense and prove a


                                           14
claim of equitable estoppel, nonmoving party must show: 1) a false representation

or concealment of a material fact; 2) the representation was made with knowledge

or the means of knowledge of the true facts; 3) the representation was made to a

party without knowledge or the means of knowledge of the true facts; 4) the

representation was made with the intention that it would be acted upon; and 5) the

party to whom the representation was made relied upon or acted upon it to his

prejudice.); Lockard v. Deitch, 855 S.W. 2d 104, 105 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi

1993, no writ) (“absent bad faith or fraud, settlement negotiations between a

plaintiff and defendant do not constitute a waiver of the defendant’s right to assert

the statute of limitations.”).

       The District Court’s decision to dismiss Trombly’s Petition for Review for

failure to meet the 14-day deadline should therefore be affirmed.

              B.     Trombly’s Petition for Review
                     Failed to Name or Serve the Texas Workforce Commission
                     as a Necessary Party.


       Texas Labor Code § 212.206 - Commission Considered Party to Judicial

Review; Notice of Petition states in pertinent part that: “(a) The commission is

considered a party to any judicial action involving a final decision of the

commission…(b)“A petition to bring an action under this subchapter must be

served on: (1) a member of the commission; or (2) a person designated by the

commission.” (AF APPX. 3). Section 212.201 (b) provides that “[e]ach other
                                         15
party to the proceeding before the commission must be made a defendant in an

action under this subchapter.” (AF APPX. 3).

      On its face, Trombly’s Petition for Review demonstrates that he did not

comply with Section 212.206 as the TWC was not named as a party, nor served as

required, according to Trombly’s own certificate of service. (See AF APPX 1, CR

05). In Hernandez, supra, the plaintiff-employee named the TWC in her appeal,

but failed to name her employer within the 14-day deadline. Although Hernandez

filed an amended petition within one month of the deadline, joining her employer

in the suit, her suit was nevertheless dismissed, and the dismissal was affirmed on

appeal because: “the statutory deadline applied to all parties to the proceeding, not

just the TWC, and therefore the trial court properly granted the TWC’s plea to the

jurisdiction. … Failure to comply with section 212.201 deprives the trial court of

jurisdiction over the suit.” 2011 WL 346291, at * 1 (citation omitted). This rule

applies with even greater force in this case because Trombly has never attempted

to join or serve the TWC as a necessary party. See also Stoker v. Tex. Workforce

Comm’n, 402 S.W.3d 926, 929-930 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.) (“[T]he

fourteen-day filing deadline for a plaintiff to file suit under section 212.201 of the

labor code is a jurisdictional prerequisite. …   Stoker’s petition failed to vest the

trial court with jurisdiction … because it did not name all the necessary defendants

[it named the TWC, but not her employer] within the limitations period.”).


                                         16
      The 198th Court was therefore correct in dismissing the case for Trombly’s

failure to comply with the Texas Labor Code, and the decision should be affirmed.

                                      PRAYER

      Trombly has waived all possible issues on appeal, and has not presented

grounds for reversal of the trial court’s decision. Therefore, the appeal should be

dismissed for want of prosecution, or alternatively, the judgment of the trial court

should be affirmed.


                                       Respectfully submitted,

                                       RICHARD L. DURBIN, JR.
                                       ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY


DATED: February 4, 2015         By:    /s/Robert Shaw-Meadow
                                       ROBERT SHAW-MEADOW
                                       Assistant United States Attorney
                                       Texas Bar No. 18162475
                                       601 N.W. Loop 410, Suite 600
                                       San Antonio, Texas 78216
                                       Telephone: (210) 384-7355
                                       Facsimile: (210) 384-7312
                                       Rob.shaw-meadow@usdoj.gov
                                       ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES




                                         17
                          CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       The undersigned certifies that a true a correct copy of the Air Force’s Brief
has been served on the following via certified mail, return receipt requested on this
the 4th day of February, 2015.

Jeremiah Trombly
366 Luther Lane
Pipe Creek, Texas 78063


                          By:   /s/Robert Shaw-Meadow
                                ROBERT SHAW-MEADOW


                      CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

      I hereby certify that the word count in Appellee’s Brief is 4,595 words.



                                /s/Robert Shaw-Meadow
                                ROBERT SHAW-MEADOW




                                         18
APPENDIX TO APPELLEE’S BRIEF
APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS                               NO

Clerk’s Record (CR pp)..……..…..………..………….………………… 1

Clerk’s 1st Supplemental Record (SCR pp) .……………....………...… 2

Tex.Lab.Code §§ 212.201 and 212.206 ………………………………… 3

Order of November 25, 2014 ..…………………………………………..4

Clerk’s letter dated December 29, 2014…………………………………5
           APPENDIX 1

       FILED IN
4th COURT OF APPEALS
 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
10/24/2014 2:57:21 PM
    KEITH E. HOTTLE
         Clerk




            CR 001
CR 002
CR 003
CR 004
CR 005
CR 006
CR 007
CR 008
CR 009
CR 010
CR 011
CR 012
CR 013
CR 014
CR 015
CR 016
CR 017
CR 018
            APPENDIX 2

           FILED IN
    4th COURT OF APPEALS
     SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
    11/3/2014 5:27:07 PM
      KEITH E. HOTTLE
            Clerk




1             SCR 001
2   SCR 002
3   SCR 003
4   SCR 004
5   SCR 005
6   SCR 006
7   SCR 007
§ 212.201. Commencement of Judicial Review; Defendants, TX LABOR § 212.201                                                   APPENDIX 3


  Vernon's Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated
    Labor Code (Refs & Annos)
      Title 4. Employment Services and Unemployment
        Subtitle A. Texas Unemployment Compensation Act
           Chapter 212. Dispute Resolution
              Subchapter E. Judicial Review of Commission Decision

                                               V.T.C.A., Labor Code § 212.201

                               § 212.201. Commencement of Judicial Review; Defendants

                                                          Currentness


(a) A party aggrieved by a final decision of the commission may obtain judicial review of the decision by bringing an action in
a court of competent jurisdiction for review of the decision against the commission on or after the date on which the decision
is final, and not later than the 14th day after that date.


(b) Each other party to the proceeding before the commission must be made a defendant in an action under this subchapter.


Credits
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 269, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993.



Notes of Decisions (40)

V. T. C. A., Labor Code § 212.201, TX LABOR § 212.201
Current through the end of the 2013 Third Called Session of the 83rd Legislature

End of Document                                                   © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.




               © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.                                                 1
§ 212.206. Commission Considered Party to Judicial Review;..., TX LABOR § 212.206




  Vernon's Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated
    Labor Code (Refs & Annos)
      Title 4. Employment Services and Unemployment
        Subtitle A. Texas Unemployment Compensation Act
           Chapter 212. Dispute Resolution
              Subchapter E. Judicial Review of Commission Decision

                                               V.T.C.A., Labor Code § 212.206

                    § 212.206. Commission Considered Party to Judicial Review; Notice of Petition

                                                          Currentness


(a) The commission is considered a party to any judicial action involving a final decision of the commission.


(b) A petition to bring an action under this subchapter must be served on:


  (1) a member of the commission; or


  (2) a person designated by the commission.


(c) As many copies of the petition as there are defendants must be left with the party served under Subsection (b). The
commission immediately shall mail one copy of the petition to each defendant.


(d) Service in compliance with this section constitutes completed service on all defendants.


Credits
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 269, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993.


Editors' Notes

                                                      REVISOR'S NOTE

                                                      2006 Main Volume

       The source law provides that service of a petition on a member of the Texas Employment Commission or a
       person designated by the commission constitutes completed service on all “parties.” The revised law substitutes
       “defendants” for the source law term “parties” because under Section 212.201 (formerly part of V.A.C.S. Article
       5221b-4(i)), all parties to a proceeding before the commission, other than the party aggrieved by the commission's
       decision, are defendants in an action for judicial review.



Notes of Decisions (1)



                 © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.                                        1
§ 212.206. Commission Considered Party to Judicial Review;..., TX LABOR § 212.206


V. T. C. A., Labor Code § 212.206, TX LABOR § 212.206
Current through the end of the 2013 Third Called Session of the 83rd Legislature

End of Document                                                  © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.




               © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.                                                2
                                                                        Department of the Air

                                                                                       APPENDIX 4


                            Fourth Court of Appeals
                                   San Antonio, Texas
                                       November 25, 2014

                                      No. 04-14-00729-CV

                                      Jeremiah TOMBLY,
                                           Appellant

                                                v.

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
                                     Appellee

                 From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas
                               Trial Court No. CV-14-0000304
                         Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding


                                         ORDER

        Appellant filed his brief on November 24, 2014. The brief does not comply with Rule
38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. Specifically, the brief
violates Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 in that it does not contain:

       (1) an identity of parties and counsel;
       (2) a table of contents;
       (3) an index of authorities;
       (4) a statement of the case;
       (5) a brief statement of the issues presented, setting out what errors were allegedly
       committed by the trial court;
       (6) include a statement of facts with record references;
       (7) a summary of the argument;
       (8) argument with appropriate citation to authorities and the appellate record;
       (9) a prayer for relief; or
       (10) an appendix.

See id. R. 38.1(a) (requiring identity of parties and counsel), (b) (requiring table of contents),
38.1(c) (requiring index of authorities), 38.1(d) (requiring statement of case); 38.1(f) (requiring
statement of issues presented), 38.1(g) (requiring statement of facts with record reference),
38.1(h) (requiring requiring summary of argument, 38.1(i) (requiring argument with appropriate
citation to authority and record), 38.1(j) (requiring prayer for relief); and 38.1(k) (requiring
appendix with copy of judgment or other appealable order, any jury charge and verdict form, any
findings of fact and conclusions of law, and text of applicable rules, regulations, ordinances,
statutes, constitutional provisions, or other law on which argument is based, or any contract or
other document central to argument).

        Additionally, appellant failed to: (1) sign the brief; (2) provide his mailing address; (3)
provide his telephone number; (4) provide his fax number, if any; and (5) provide an email
address. See id. R. 9.1(b). The front cover of the brief does not include all of the information
required by Rule 9.4(g). See id. R. 9.4(g) (requiring front cover of filed document to contain
case style, case number, title of document, name of party filing document, name and mailing
address, telephone number, fax number, if any, and email of party). The brief also fails to
include the certificate of service, showing proof of service on the opposing party or its counsel.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(d), (e). Moreover, we cannot discern from appellant’s brief the nature of
the action, the relief granted or denied below, nor the exact nature of the complaints appellant is
asserting on appeal.

       Although substantial compliance with Rule 38.1 is generally sufficient, this court may
order a party to amend, supplement, or redraw a brief if it flagrantly violates Rule 38.1. See id.
R. 38.9(a). We conclude that the formal defects described above constitute flagrant violations of
Rule 38.1.
         Accordingly, we ORDER appellant’s brief stricken and ORDER appellant to file an
amended brief in this court on or before December 29, 2014. The amended brief must correct
the violations listed above and fully comply with the applicable rules. See, e.g., id. R. 9.4, 9.5,
38.1. If the amended brief does not comply with this order, we “may strike the brief, prohibit
[appellant] from filing another, and proceed as if [appellant] had failed to file a brief.” See id. R.
38.9(a); see also id. R. 38.8(a) (authorizing this court to dismiss appeal if appellant fails to timely
file brief). Even if we do not strike the brief and prohibit appellant from filing another brief, we
may find that any issues raised by appellant are waived due to inadequate briefing, and overrule
those issues. See, e.g., Marin Real Estate Partners v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 2011, no pet.).
        We recognize that appellant represents himself on appeal, i.e., he is acting pro se.
However, the law is clear that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys
and must comply with all applicable rules of procedure, including the rules governing appellate
briefs. Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.). A pro se
litigant is required to properly present her case on appeal just as she is required to properly
present her case to the trial court. Id. Accordingly, we will not apply different standards merely
because an appeal is brought by a litigant acting without advice of counsel. Id.
        If appellant timely files a brief that complies with this order, appellee’s brief will be due
thirty days after appellant’s brief is filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b).




                                                       _________________________________
                                                       Marialyn Barnard, Justice
       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 25th day of November, 2014.



                                              ___________________________________
                                              Keith E. Hottle
                                              Clerk of Court
                                                                                              FILE COPY




                                                                                             APPENDIX 5

                                       COURT OF APPEALS
CATHERINE STONE                         FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT                         KEITH E. HOTTLE
  CHIEF JUSTICE                           CADENA-REEVES JUSTICE CENTER                           CLERK OF COURT
KAREN ANGELINI                               300 DOLOROSA, SUITE 3200
SANDEE BRYAN MARION                        SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205-3037
MARIALYN BARNARD                         WWW.TXCOURTS.GOV/4THCOA.ASPX                               TELEPHONE
REBECA C. MARTINEZ                                                                                 (210) 335-2635
PATRICIA O. ALVAREZ
LUZ ELENA D. CHAPA                                                                                FACSIMILE NO.
  JUSTICES                                                                                         (210) 335-2762




                                              December 29, 2014

       Jeremiah Tombly                                 Richard Johnson
       366 Luther Lane                                 HQ AFPC/DPIEPC USFE
       Pipe Creek, TX 78063                            JBSA
                                                       Randolph, TX 78150
                                                       * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *


       RE:    Court of Appeals Number: 04-14-00729-CV
              Trial Court Case Number:    CV-14-0000304
              Style: Jeremiah Tombly
              v.
              Department of the Air Force

               The brief of the appellant Jeremiah Tombly does not comply in numerous respects with Rule
       38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. Specifically, the brief
       violates Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 in that it does not contain: (1) an identity of
       parties and counsel; (2) a table of contents; (3) an index of authorities; (4) a statement of the
       case; (5) a brief statement of the issues presented, setting out what errors were allegedly
       committed by the trial court; (6) include a statement of facts with record references; (7) a
       summary of the argument; (8) argument with appropriate citation to authorities and the appellate
       record; (9) a prayer for relief; or (10) an appendix. See id. R. 38.1(a) (requiring identity of
       parties and counsel), (b) (requiring table of contents), 38.1(c) (requiring index of authorities),
       38.1(d) (requiring statement of case); 38.1(f) (requiring statement of issues presented), 38.1(g)
       (requiring statement of facts with record reference), 38.1(h) (requiring summary of argument,
       38.1(i) (requiring argument with appropriate citation to authority and record), 38.1(j) (requiring
       prayer for relief); and 38.1(k) (requiring appendix with copy of judgment or other appealable
       order, any jury charge and verdict form, any findings of fact and conclusions of law, and text of
       applicable rules, regulations, ordinances, statutes, constitutional provisions, or other law on
       which argument is based, or any contract or other document central to argument).

              Additionally, appellant failed to: (1) sign the brief; (2) provide his mailing address; (3)
       provide his telephone number; (4) provide his fax number, if any; and (5) provide an email
       address. See id. R. 9.1(b). The front cover of the brief does not include all of the information
                                                                                           FILE COPY




required by Rule 9.4(g). See id. R. 9.4(g) (requiring front cover of filed document to contain
case style, case number, title of document, name of party filing document, name and mailing
address, telephone number, fax number, if any, and email of party). The brief also fails to
include the certificate of service, showing proof of service on the opposing party or its counsel.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(d), (e). Moreover, we cannot discern from appellant’s brief the nature of
the action, the relief granted or denied below, nor the exact nature of the complaints appellant is
asserting on appeal.

        This Court previously struck appellant’s original brief and rendered an order pointing out the
deficiencies and requiring appellant to file an amended brief. The amended brief in no way corrected
the deficiencies previously noted by this Court. However, the Court is not ordering appellant to
rebrief. However, appellant should be advised that this court may consider his appellate complaints
waived due to inadequate briefing if the noted deficiencies are not corrected prior to submission.
See, e.g., Lott v. First Bank, No. 04-13-00531-CV, 2014 WL 4922896, at *2 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio Oct. 1, 2014, no pet.); Castillo v. Peoples, No. 04-13-00311-CV, 2014 WL 1089750, at *3
(Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 19, 2014, pet. denied). Moreover, please be advised that further
filings must comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure — specifically the rules regarding
service on all parties.

                                                      Very truly yours,
                                                      KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

                                                      _____________________________
                                                      Jennifer Saenz
                                                      Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53221


cc: The Honorable M. Rex Emerson
Tammy Kneuper (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
