Guy Sparkman v. Microsoft Corporation, SupportSpace, Inc. as Agent for Microsoft Corp., Omar Franco, as Agent for Microsoft Corp. and Robert Doe, as Agent for Microsoft Corp. and Karen Phillips
FILED IN COURT OF APPEALS
12th Court '•' toe :.r 0 strict
I
NO. 12-13-00175-GV
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS
12th. COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
AT TYLER, TEXAS
GUY SPARKMAN, PLAINTIFF/ THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT
APPELLANT
VS.
Karen Phillips, Smith County Clerk, Intervener
Third Party, Plaintiff
And
Microsoft Corporation; Support Space, Inc. as agent for
Microsoft Corp.; Omar Franco, as agent for Microsoft Corp.
And Robert Doe, as agent for Microsoft Corp.
Defendants
APPELLEES
ON APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO 2
SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
TRIAL CASE NO. 60, 671-A
APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING
ON COURT'S MARCH 18,2015 JUDGMENT
Guy Sparkman, Pro Se
420 Haden St.
Tyler, Texas 75701
No Phone
Email: gysparkman@yahoo.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii, m
POINTS FOR REHEARING
1. There Court's Memorandum opinion andjudgment demonstrate the Court
has made a clear, manifest and substantial error oflaw; and , the error is of such
importance to the jurisprudence ofthe state that, in the opinion ofthe supreme
court, it requires correction. Re. Texas Government Code Title 2, Subtitle A.
Chapter 22 Subchapter A, Section 22,001 (6)
2. The Court's memorandum andjudgment involves the constructions of a statute,
(a). Clearly, the Court has made a substantial error in its construction of Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem Code. 11.051 et seq.. Therefore, it requires reconsideration and
correction (b) The error ofconstruction violated Appellants Equal Protection ofthe
protected right to file lawsuits that may be unsuccessful.
3. The appeal involves fundamental constitutional issues. The Court's memorandum
opinion and Appellant's brief demonstrate the Court violated Appellant's Due.
Process and Equal Protection Rights. Therefore, the memorandum opinion and
judgment require reconsideration and correction.
i
4. The memorandum opinion and judgment undermine the Public's faith, trust and
confidence in the court's memorandum Opinions and judgments.
5. There Memorandum Opinion makes numerous erroneous statements of
controlling and dispositive facts and law;
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 2, 3.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES 3-14
CONCLUSIONAND PRAYER 14,15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 15.
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Armstrong v. Manzo
380 U.S. 545, 552, 85 S. Ct. 1187,1191,1191,14 L. ed 2d 62, 66 14
BE&K Const Co. v. NLRB,
536 U.S. 516 9,11,12
Creel v. District Attorney for Medina County,
818 S. W. 2d 45, 46 (Tex 1919) 13
Equitable Gen. Ins. Co. V. Yates
684 S. W. 2d 669, 671 (Tex. 1984) 13
Griffin V. Breckenridge,
403 U.S. 88,102 (1971) 3
HAINES V. KERNER,
404 U.S. 519 (1972) 1
ii
HUGHES V. ROWE
449 U.S 5,1980 (1980) L
Jackson Walker, L.L.P,
247 S. W 3d HN 35 n
Martin v. Martin, Martin & Richards, Inc.
989 S. W. 2d 357, 359 (Tex. 1998 13
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co.
303 U.S. 197 (1938) l
Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Assn.,
389 U. S. 217, 222 (1967) 12
Mullanev. Central Hanover Tr. Co.
339 U.S. 306, at313" 15
Murphy v. State
95 S. W. 3d 317, 320 (Tex. App-Houston) 4
Olmsted v. United States
277 U.S. 438 (1928) x
Sax V. Votteler, 648 S. W. 2d 661, 664 12
Wilson v. State,
977 S. W. 2d 379, 380 n. 3 (Tex. Crim. App 1998) 4
U.S. v. Throckmorton,
98U.S.61 4
in
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
12th DISTRICT OF TEXAS:
Appellant files this compelling Motion for Rehearing requesting rehearing
reconsideration of the Memorandum Opinion and Judgment issued in this
appeal, on March. 18, 2015 and respectfully shows the Court as follows:
PRO SE LITIGANTS
" A pros se complaint, however in artfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers and can only be
dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff
can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to
relief
HAINES V. KERNER, 404 U.S. 519 (1972),
HUGHES V. ROWE 449 U.S 5,1980 (1980)
" Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just
settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers
which prevent the achievement of that end. "
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co. 303 U.S. 197 (1938)
Crime is contagious, If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it
contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invito^
anarchy."
Olmsted v. United States 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
1.
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Clearly , rehearing is appropriate in this important litigation involving fundamental
and inalienable constitutional rights important to the People of Texas.
By this Motion for Rehearing, Appellant respectfully asks the Court to revisit its
memorandum opinion and judgment. Rehearing is appropriate inthis utmost
important case involving fundamental constitutional rights, privileges and
immunities of the people of Texas
CLEARLY
The Court's Opinion and judgment requires correction through reconsideration. This
case involves fundamental constitutional questions of the utmost importance to the
people ofTexas, especially persons who elect to exercise their right to effective and
meaningful access to the courts without the assistance of a licensed attorney.
THEREFORE
It is crucial that the Court thoroughly and correctly address each of the issues
presented to the Court. Plainly the opinion does not address all ofthe arguments
2.
and authorities presented by Appellant's brief. This irrefutable fact violates
Plaintiffsfundamental and inalienable right to due process and equal protection
rights guaranteed and protected by the Constitution of the United States and the State
of Texas
Appellant respectfully moves for rehearing. By this Motion for Rehearing,
Appellant asks the Court to revisit its decision to affirm the Trial Courts judgment.
VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS
Clearly, the memorandum opinion and judgment violates Appellant's due process
and equal protection rights. This denial ofequal protection ofthe laws and
denial of due process was clearly the product ofclass based bias and prejudice
against pro se litigants . See Griffin V. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971)
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
JUDGE KNIZE'S AUTHORITY TO ACT AS TRIAL JUDGE
Order of Recusal:
The Memorandum Opinion does not address the issue that Judge Roger's Order
of Recusal was based on a manifestly false and fraudulent statement of the
3.
controlling fact. Therefore, as a matter oflaw, the Order ofRecusal was VOID
The memorandum opinion's failure to address this controlling issue violates
Appellant's due process right and the equal protection ofthe clearly established law
that: FRAUD VITIATES EVERY THING IT TOUCHES, "even judgments"
Re ; U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61
Oath of Office for Judge Sitting bv Assignment
The law is clearly established that the issue ofoath ofoffice can be raised for the
first time on appeal. See Murphy v. State 95 S. W. 3d 317, 320 (Tex. App-
Houston)
"Although appellant did not raise this issue in the trial court, a challenge to a
trialjudges' legal qualifications may be raised thefirst time on appeal citing
Wilson v. State, 977S. W. 2d379, 380 n. 3 (Tex. Crim. App 1998)
Appellant was not aware ofthe fact that Judge Knize had not been administered the
oath required by the Texas Constitution and the Texas Government Code . until he
began research for this appeal. The people ofTexas have the right to assume their
public officials and judges to uphold the law.
The Texas Government Code Sec. 25.0018 RECORD, states:
4.
"When a retired orformer judge is appointed asa visitingjudge, the clerk shall
enter in the administrativefile as apart of the proceedings in the case a record
that gives the visitingjudge's name and shows that:
(1) thejudge ofthe court was disqualified, absent, or disabled to try the cause.
(2) the visitingjudgewas appointed; and
(3) the oath ofofficeprescribed by lawfor aretired orformerjudge who is
appointed as a visitingjudge was duly administered to the visitingjudge andfiled
with the regionaljudge."
When appellant requested the clerk's office to see the administrative file, the
deputy clerk and the clerkstated they did nothave or maintain an
administrative file.
THE
CLEARLY ESTABLISHED LAW
The law is clearly established that a litigant may raise this issue for the first time on
appeal. SEE, Murphy v. State, supra
The citizens of Texas have not only the right; but, the duty to hold their
public officials accountable for the blatant violations of their official duties
and responsibilities imposed by law!
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT STATUTE
Pages 16 thru 23 ofAppellant's Briefare included herein by reference thereto as
5.
though they were repeated herein word for word. The authorities identified i n these
pages must be considered in conjunction with the authorities cited in this document
FIRST
The statute is unconstitutional and manifestly void on its face or as applied to
Appellant; because, by its terms it always operates unconstitutionally; because
it significantly abridges and chills pro se litigant's fundamental right to
petition the courts, even thought the petition may be unsuccessful.
FURTHERMORE
(1) The memorandum opinion and judgment violate Appellant's due process
rights; because, it does not address each of the arguments and authorities
presented and relied on in Appellant's Brief.
(2) The memorandum opinion violates Appellant's Equal Protection rights;
Because, it does not give Appellant the benefit of the clearly established law as
mandated by the Supreme Count and authorities cited on those pages.
(3) Therefore, the judgement of the Court is VOID, as a matter of law.
6.
SECOND:
The memorandum opinion states that Appellant does not have the right to file
frivolous litigation.
The issues in this appeal do not concern "frivolous litigation". Plainly, they
concern the fundamental and protected right to petition the courts even
though the litigation may be unsuccessful! See, BE&K Const Co. v. NLRB,
536 U.S. 516
Therefore, the memorandum's numerous statements that "frivolous litigation" is
not protected litigation; and the briefing offrivolous litigation is patently
misleading, deceptive, irrelevant and not applicable to the dispositive issues
before the court. I.e.,
" Moreover, as set forth previously, there is no constitutional right to file
frivolous litigation. See Retzaff, 356 S. W. 3d at 704. Therefore we conclude that
Chapter 11 is not overbroad because it does not include protected conduct
within its prohibitions.".
Ref. page 8 ofmemorandum opinion. This misleads and deceives the court
about the real issue.
CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE
CHAPTER 11. VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS
Sec. 11.054. CRITERIA FOR FINDING PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS
LITIGANT. A court may find a plaintiff a vexatious litigant if the defendant
shows that there is not a reasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail in
the litigation against the defendant and that:
(1) the plaintiff, in the seven-year period immediately preceding the date the
defendant makes the motion under Section 11.051, has commenced, prosecuted,
or maintained at least five litigations as a pro se litigant other than in a small
claims court that have been:
(A) finally determined adversely to the plaintiff;
(B) permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought
to trial or hearing; or
(C) determined by a trial or appellate court to be frivolous or groundless under
state or federal laws or rules of procedure;
(2) after a litigation has been finally determined against the plaintiff, the
plaintiffrepeatedly relitigates or attempts to retitigate, pro se, either:
(A) the validity ofthe determination against the same defendant as to whom the
litigation was finally determined; or
(B) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law
determined or concluded by the fmal determination against the same defendant
as to whom the litigation was finally determined; or
(3) the plaintiff has previously been declared to be a vexatious litigant by a state
or federal court in an. action or proceeding based on the same or substantially
similar facts, transition, or.occurrence.
Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 806, Sec. 1, eff. Sept 1,1997.
Amended by:
Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Cb. 1224 (S.B. 1630), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2013.
8.
THE STATUTE PROHIBITS PROTECTED CONDUCT AND
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ON ITS FACE
Clearly, the statute ABRIDGES unsuccessful lawsuits that are protected by the
Constitution of the United States and the State of Texas.
THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE
THE CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT TO PETITION THE
COURTS EVEN THOUGH THE LAWSUIT MAY BE UNSUCCESSFUL?
The First Amendment of Constitution of the United States says nothing about
successful petitions. See, BE&K Const Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S. 516
"The First Amendment provides, in relevant part, that "Congress shall make no
law... abridging,., the right of the people... to petition the Governmentfor a
redress ofgrievances." We have recognized this right to petition as one of "the
mostprecious ofthe liberties safeguarded by the Bill ofMights," Mine Workers v.
Illinois BmAssn., 389 v s 217, 222 (1967), and have explained that the right is
implied by "ftjhe very idea ofagovernment, republican inform," United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 552 (1876). "
ADDITIONALLY
'^Second, even unsuccessful but reasonably based suits advance some First
Amendment interests. Like successful suits, unsuccessful suits allow the " public
airing of disputedfacts^ "Bill Johnson's, supra, at 743 (quoting Balmer, Sham
Litigation and the Antitrust Law, 29 Buffalo L. Rev. 39, 60 (1980)), and
raise matters ofpublic concern. They also promote the evolution ofthe law by
supporting the development oflegal theories that may not gain acceptance the
first time around Moreover, the ability to lawfully prosecute even unsuccessful
suits adds legitimacy to the court system as a designated alternative to force. See
Andrews, A Right ofAccess to Court Under the Petition Clause ofthe First
Amendment: Defining the Right, 60 Ohio St L. J. 557, 656 (1999) (noting the
potentialfor avoiding violence by the filing of unsuccessful claims)"
PLAINLY
The Supreme Court has mandated that the right to petition the courts, includes
the right to file unsuccessful lawsuits!!
HOWEVER
Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code Texas Civil Practices Chapter 11 states
in relevant and controlling part:
"Sec. 11.054 CRITERIA FOR FINDING A PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS
LITIGANT. A court mayfind a plaintiffa vexatious litigant ifthe defendant
shows that there is not a reasonable probability that theplaintiff willprevailin the
litigation against the defendant and that:
(1) the plaintiff, in the seven-yearperiod immediately preceding the date the
defendant makes the motion under Section 11.051, hascommence, prosecuted, or
maintained at leastfive litigations as a pro se litigant other than in a small claims
court that have been :
A.finally determine adversely to theplaintiff. "
Sec. 11.001 DEFINITIONS.
(5) "Plaintiff' means an individual who commences or maintains a litigation pro
se'i
Sec. 11.002 APPLICABILITY. (A) This chapter does not apply to an attorney
licensed to practice law in this state unless the attorney proceeds pro se. "
Plainly, honest, reasonable and unbiased persons trained in the law can see
that the foregoing provisions of the statute violate the First Amendment rights as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; therefore, void on
10.
their face and as applied to Appellant.
Equal Protection- Discrimination Against Pro Se Litigants
The memorandum opinion states :
"We nextconsider Sparkman's general contention that Chapter 11 discriminates
againstpro se litigants. In so doing, wefirst note that the statute does not state it
applies only topro se litigants "
The statute demonstrates that this a manifestly erroneous statement of a
material and controlling fact Therefore the Court should reconsider the
holding.
"Under the 14th Amendment ofthe U.S. Constitution and Texas Constitution art 1,
§3, allperson similarly situated should be treated alike. The general rule is that
legislation ispresumed to be valid andwillbesustained iftheclassification drawn
by thestatute is rationally to a legitimate state interest, unless thestatute
discriminates against a suspect class." Jackson Walker, L.L.P, 247 S. W3dHN
35
STRICT SCRUTINY
The law is clearly established that the courts must apply strict scrutiny when a
fundamental constitutional right is infringed, particularly those found in the Bill of
Rights and those the Supreme Court has deemed a fundamental right protected by
the Due Process Clause or the Liberty Clause of the 14th Amendment.
In BE&K Construction Co v. NLRB , 536 U.S. 516 (2001) the Supreme Court
held:
11.
"The FirstAmendment provides, in relevantpart, that "Congress shall make no
law... abridging... the right ofthepeople... topetition the Governmentfor a
redress ofgrievances." We have recognized this right topetition as one of "the
mostprecious ofthe liberties safeguarded by the Bill ofRights," Mine Workers v.
Illinois Bar Assn., 389 jj s 217, 222 (1967), and have explained that the right is
implied by "ft/he very idea ofa government, republican inform," United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 552 (1876). "
This court did not apply strict scrutiny in its evaluation of the constitutionality of
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 11. 051 et seq. Therefore, the Court have violated
Appellant's Due Process and Equal Protection Rights. Consequently the
memorandum opinion and judgment are void as a matter of law.
INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION
The memorandum opinion and judgment are unconstitutional and therefore void;
because, the Court violated Appellants Due Process and Equal Protection rights.
Unconstitutionally Vague or Overbroad:
The memorandum opinion states: "Therefore, we conclude that Chapter 11 is not
overbroad because it does not include protected conduct within it prohibitions. "
This is a manifestly erroneous and arbitrary conclusion.
The law is clearly established that filing unsuccessful lawsuits is protected conduct.
See, BE&K Const. Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S. 516
Arbitrary
The memorandum cites as authority Sax V. Votteler, 648 S. W. 2d 661, 664
(Tex. 1983). Sax holds: 12.
"HN 6. Texas Const Art 1 § 13 ensures that Texas citizens bringing common law
causes ofaction willnotbe unreasonably be denied access to the court"
"HN7. A statute or ordinance that unreasonably abridges ajusticable right to
obtain redressfor injuries causedby the wrongful acts ofanother amounts to a
denial ofdue process under Tex. Const art 1 § 13, and is, therefore, void."
INDIGENCY FINDINGS
The memorandum states: "Despite Sparkman's assertion the record reflects
that Phillipsfiled a contest to the affidavit" The trial court's "Case Summary"
demonstrates this to be an erroneous statement of the controlling fact. Exhibit A.
A contest of the affidavit must filed before the first hearing by the trial court.
"An uncontested affidavit ofinability topay is conclusive as a matter oflaw."
Equitable Gen. Ins. Co. V. Yates 684 S. W. 2d 669, 671 (Tex. 1984)
FAILURE TO CONDUCT HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS
The Court's finding on this issue is clearly and manifestly misleading, deceptive
and erroneous. The Court erroneously relies on Martin v. Martin, Martin &
Richards, Inc. 989 S. W. 2d 357, 359 (Tex. 1998. That case is not relevant or
applicable to the facts and issues in this case. Furthermore, The Court reversed
that case!
The Court failed to consider the controlling case cited by the Appellant:
Creel v. District Attorney for Medina County, 818 S W. 2d 45, 46 (Tex 1919).
13
The Texas Supreme Court in Creel Stated:
"The dispositive issue in this case is whether it was adenial ofdueprocessfor the
trial court to summarily dismiss Creel's petition absent either notice or a hearing.
HN2 Fundamental requirements ofdue process demand an opportunity to be
heard Armstrong v. Manzo 380 U.S. 545, 552, 85 S. Ct 1187,1191,1191,14 L.
ed 2d 62, 66."
The Supreme Court in Armstrong v. Manzo held:
"Many controversies have been raged about the cryptic and abstract words ofthe
DueProcess Clause but there can be no doubt that ata minimum they require
thatt deprivation oflife, liberty orproperty by adjudication bepreceded by notice
and opportunityfor hearing appropriate to the nature ofthe case" Mullane v.
Central Hanover Tr. Co. 339 U.S. 306, at 313"
It is well settled that lawsuits are property.
Therefore, the Court's decision on this issue violated Appellant's Due
Process and Equal Protections rights. Therefore, the ruling is void as a
matter of law.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
Appellant respectfully requests the Court grant this Motion for Reconsideration
and reverse the trial Court decision.
For all the foregoing compelling reasons and in the interest ofthe Constitution,
Due Process and Equal Protection rehearmg and reconsideration is warranted
and necessary for the validity ofthe Court's judgment and the Public faith, trust
and confidence in the judiciary, the judicial_processes and the administration of
14
justice in Smith County, Texas
420 Haden St.
Tyler. Texas 75701
No phone
Email: gysparkman @yahoo.com
TFRTTFTCATE OF SERVICE
Ihereby certify that on April 1, 2015 I hand delivered atrue copy of tlus Motion
For Rehearing to the office ofthe attorney for the Defendant.
Guy ISparkman
15
County Court at Law 2
Case Summary
GUY SPARKMAN vs. MICROSOFT CORPORATION;
Case No. 60,671-A
§ Location:
A
County Court at Law 2
SUPPORTSPACE, IN. AS AGENT FOR MICROSOFT § Judicial Officer: Rogers, Randall L
CORP.; OMAR FRANCO, AS AGENT FOR § Filed on: 03/20/2012
MICROSOFT CORP. AND ROBERT DOE, AS AGENT § Track Number: 251578
FOR MICROSOFT CORP. §
Case Information
Statistical Closures Case Type: Contract - Other
05/08/2013 Case Dismissed by Plaintiff (OCA)
Case
05/08/2013 Disposed
Status:
03/20/2012 Filed
DATE Case assignment
Current Case Assignment
Case Number 60,671-A
Court County Court at Law 2
Date Assigned 03/20/2012
Judicial Officer Rogers, Randall L
PARTY INFORMATION
Lead Attorneys
Plaintiff SPARKMAN, GUY
ProSe
420 HADEN STREET
TYLER, TX 75701
Defendant MICROSOFT CORPORATION AINSWORTH, JENNIFER P.
Retained
903-509-5091(F)
903-509-5000(W)
909 ESE LOOP 323, SUITE 400
P.O. BOX7339
TYLER, TX 75711
JAINSWORTH@WILSONLAWFIRM.COM
OMAR FRANCO AS AGENT FOR MICROSOFT CORP
ROBERT DOE, AS AGENT FOR MICROSOFT CORP
SUPPORTSPACE, INC.
Date Events & Orders of the Court
EVENTS
03/20/2012 Jury Trial Request
03/20/2012 Q Original Petition (OCA)
03/20/2012 Qj Civil Case Information Sheet
03/20/2012 QJ Affidavit
04/05/2012 SI Affidavit
04/09/2012 yj Memorandum TRUE AND CORRECT
COPYOFORIGINAL
04/18/2012 FILED IN SMITH COUNTY
CLERK'S OFFICE
PAGE 1 OF 3. Printed on 03/31/2015 at 12:30 PM
County Court at Law 2
Case Summary
Case No. 60,671-A
yj Request
04/20/2012 yj Memorandum
06/05/2012 Citation Issued by Certified Mail
06/15/2012 QJ Green Card Returned
06/18/2012 QJ Motion to Dismiss
06/20/2012 S3RESPONSE
06/20/2012 CLJ Order of Recusal
06/21/2012 yj Motion
06/21/2012 S3 RESPONSE
06/25/2012 yj Motion
06/27/2012 £3 Plea
06/29/2012 yj Original Answer
07/17/2012 yj Order
09/14/2012 Notice
09/14/2012 Qu Correspondence
09/17/2012 yj Motion
09/20/2012 S3 Docket Sheet
09/24/2012 Transfer Sent
09/25/2012 yj Response
09/27/2012 S3 Motion
10/02/2012 S3 RESPONSE
10/05/2012 QJ Motion To Strike
11/13/2012 y j Motion
11/15/2012 yj Notice of Setting
01/03/2013 %U Response
01/14/2013 fi] Brief
01/14/2013 yj Memorandum
01/15/2013 S3 Brief
01/16/2013 Q Motion To Strike
01/18/2013 yj Request
01/22/2013 yj Supplement
02/14/2013 SJ Order Denying
02/14/2013 S3Order
02/14/2013 QJ Order Denying TRUE AND CORRECT
WKtfBiCOPY OF ORIGINAL
02/22/2013 Certified Copy «X») filed IN SMITH COUNTY
CLERK'S OFFICE
PAGE 2 OF 3 Printed on 03/31/2015 at 12:30 PM
County Court at Law 2
Case Summary
Case No. 60,671-A
02/25/2013 yj Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
02/26/2013 yj Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
03/04/2013 yj Motion to Withdraw
03/04/2013 QJ Notice of Submission
03/28/2013 yj Supplemental Petition
04/02/2013 QJ Motion to Dismiss
04/08/2013 S3 RESPONSE
04/11/2013 yj Letter
04/26/2013 yj Receipt
04/29/2013 yj Miscellaneous
05/08/2013 EVENT
05/08/2013 Case Disposed
05/09/2013 Sj Docket Sheet
05/30/2013 yj Notice of Appeal
05/31/2013 yj Designation
06/05/2013 yj Letter
06/10/2013 Miscellaneous
07/17/2013 yj Correspondence
08/07/2013 yj Correspondence
08/09/2013 QJ Correspondence
08/27/2013 yj Correspondence
03/19/2015 yj Correspondence
HEARINGS
01/08/2013 All Pending Motions (10:00 AM) (Judicial Officer: Rogers, Randall L)
Date Financial Information
Plaintiff SPARKMAN, GUY
Total Charges 315.00
Total Payments and Credits 0.00
Balance Due as of 3/31/2015 315.00
^^HEAND CORRECT
MlC0PYOF ORIGINAL
• 7FILED IN SMITH COUNTY
CLERK'S OFFICE
PAGE 3 OF 3 Printed on 03/31/2015 at 12:30 PM
CERTIFICATION OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF SMITH
I, KAREN PHILLIPS. CLERK OF THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW 2 OF SMITH COUNTY,
TEXAS, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING ARE TRUE AND CORRECT COPIES
OF THE FOLLOWING LISTED CIVIL PROCEEDINGS TO -WIT:
CASE SUMMARY
STYLED: GUY SPARKMAN VS. MICROSOFT CORPORATION; SUPPORTSPACE, IN. AS
AGENT FOR MICROSOFT CORP.; OMAR FRANCO, AS AGENT FOR MICROSOFT CORP.
AND ROBERT DOE, AS AGENT FOR MICROSOFT CORP.
FILED IN COUNTY COURT AT LAW 2, CAUSE NO. 60,671-A, SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS, AS
THE SAME APPEARS FROM THE ORIGINALS NOW ON FILE IN THE CIVIL DEPARTMENT
SMITH COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. SMITH COUNTY. TEXAS.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2015.
Karen Philligs, County Clerk
Texas
ette Holmes, Deputy
%
"wuiiim^k\*v
''//!!••.,.nlV\