ACCEPTED
04-15-00219-CV
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
9/21/2015 4:39:33 PM
KEITH HOTTLE
CLERK
CAUSE NO. 04-15-00219 — CV
CAUSE NO. 04-15-00218 — CV
FILED IN
4th COURT OF APPEALS
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
DAVID GOAD, 09/21/2015 4:39:33 PM
Appellant KEITH E. HOTTLE
Clerk
V.
JAMIE OSBORNE, FILED IN
Appellee 4th COURT OF APPEALS
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
09/21/2015 4:39:33 PM
CONSOLIDATED WITH KEITH E. HOTTLE
Clerk
DAVID GOAD,
Appellant
V.
ERIC STREY
Appellee
Appealed from the County Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2014-CV-0393
Trial Cour No. 20l4—CV-0392
Robin V. Dwyer, Judge Presiding
APPELLEES’ OPPOSITION TO APPELLANT’S
SECOND REQUEST FOR MORE TIME
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
COMES NOW Appellees Jamie Osborne and Eric Strey and files this their
Opposition to Appellant’s Second Request for More Time and would respectfully
show unto this Court as follows:
1. Relief Reg uested
On September 14, 2015, Appellant, David Goad filed his Second Request
for More Time with this Court. Mr. Goad’s Motion claims a medical condition he
has lived with for six years has left him physically unable to draft appellate briefs
required of him in this Court, Texas Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Mr. Goad concludes his Request by asking this Court for an indefinite
extension of time for Mr. Goad to file his brief. Mr. Goad’s request comes just
four days prior to the September 18, 2015 deadline this Court imposed on him to
file his Appellate brief. Mr. Goad’s request should in all things be DENIED and
his appeal DISMISSED for Want of Prosecution.
II. Argument & Authorities
Mr. Goad’s Request is not accompanied by any competent evidence. The
documents attached to Mr. Goad’s Request are either irrelevant, in the case of
Exhibit A or hearsay, exhibits B, C, and D, pursuant to the Texas Rules of
Evidence. Mr. Goad attached an article that is not verified as a business record and
Page 2 of 6
provides the Court with no relevant information as to why Mr. Goad has failed to
comply with the order. He also attached three letters allegedly from his own
treating physicians, the latest of which is dated April 20, 2015, from Dr. Toledo.
None of the three letters say anything about Mr. Goad not being able to work
during the relevant time period. In fact, since Exhibit B was reportedly drafted by
Dr. Horton on August 16, 2010, Mr. Goad has prosecuted three lawsuits in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, two of which he
appealed to the United States Appellate Court for the Fifih Circuitl. In addition he
has appealed to this Court no less than seven (7) times in that same spanz,
including the present consolidated appeal. He has also appealed to sister courts, the
Third Court of Appeals3 and the Fourteenth Court of Appeals4 during that time
period. He has even appealed one of his cases to the Texas Supreme Cou1t.5
1 1. 5:2011-cv-01056 Goad, et. al. v. Guadalupe County, et. al. [Appealed]
2. 522013-cv-00063 Goad v. Doe, et; al.
3. 5:2014-cv-00813 Goad v. Camareno, et, al. [Appealed]
2 1. 08-10-00216 David Goad v. ZuehlAirport Flying Community 0wnersAssociation;
2. 04-11-00293-CV David Goad v. Zuehl/lirport Flying Community 0wnersAssociation;
3. 04-11-00894 In re David Goad, Relator;
4. 04~14-00497-CV David C. Goad v. The County of Guadalupe, Texas;
5.04-~14-00501In re David Goad;
6. 04-14-00637 In re David Goad;
7. 04-15-00218 / 04-15-00219 David Goad v.]amie Osborne
/ David Goad v. Eric Strey.
3 03-12-00170-CV In re David Goad
4 14-13-00861-CV David Goad v. Hancock Bankf/k/a Peoples First Community Bank
5 15-0662 David Goad v. Hancock Bankf/k/a Peoples First Community Bank
Page 3 of 6
Interestingly, Mr. Goad recently requested an extension of time to file his brief in
his Texas Supreme Court case. He cited this Court’s August 12, order and its
September 18, 2015 deadline as a basis for the extension he requested from the
Texas Supreme Court. A Copy of Mr. Goad’s Extension Request, file stamped
August 31, 2015 in Cause No. 15-0662 is attached hereto as Exhibit A for the
Court’s convenience.
If Mr. Goad were truly unable to complete more than ten pages of briefing in
a month’s time as he claims, his Request for Additional time, should have been
presented to this Court immediately upon the Court’s issuance of its August 12,
2015 Order, not thirty (30) days later.
Appellees are fully aware of the Court’s great discretion over its docket and
power to schedule matters before it. Appellees’ intention is voice their objection to
Appellant’s Request and alert the Court to Mr. Goad’s long Appellate history, even
during his alleged illness. Mr. Goad has had ample time to prosecute this appeal
and drafi his Appellate brief. Yet he has chosen not to so, rather his apparent
intention is to dictate to this Court when he will submit his brief, while using this
Court’s orders to delay other appeals he is prosecuting. Mr. Goad intends to file
his do so when it is convenient for him, regardless of the Rules of Appellate
Procedure or the Orders of this Court.
Page 4 of 6
If the Court chooses to allow Mr. Goad an additional extension, Appellees
respectfully request the Court admonish Mr. Goad to retain counsel and that no
additional extensions will be given as a result of Mr. Goad’s personal inability to
file his Appellate Brief.
III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellees respectfully request
this Honorable Fourth Court of Appeals DENY Appellant’s Request and DISMISS
his appeal for Want of Prosecution.
Page 5 of 6
Respectfully Submitted,
Chunn, Price & Harris
16500 San Pedro Ave., Suite 410
San Antonio, TX 78232
Telephone (210) 343.5000
Telecopier (210) 525.0960
/s/ Jeremy R. Sloan
Jeremy Sloan
State Bar No. 24054995
Email: jsloangazgphattorneys.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was
served on:
David Goad
l 154 Rivertree Dr.
New Braunfels, TX 78130
/s/ Jeremy R. Sloan
Jeremy Sloan
Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT A
HLIZU
E COURT
‘N sU‘(::E1héxAs
Au(531'lli'l5 _
CISIK M1 5
' '
-
BLAKE HAW‘ DeP“‘V I ‘
THE
- V
By
1)
§
A
IN
Petitioner, §
v. §
§ SUPREME COURT
BANK F/K/A I’E()l’l,ES
HAN(.‘()Cl( §
FIRST COMMUNITY BANK, §
Respondent. § OF TEXAS
I’ETl'I'IONER'S MOTION TO
EXTEND TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR REVIEW
I. This motion is brought under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedures 53.7 (f) Extension of
Time to tile petition for review. Said rule provides authority to the Texas Supreme Court to grant
additional time for Petitioner to tile his petition for review.
2. Petitioner is David Goad. in I’/'0/aria /’eI'.s'una (pro se): respondent is Hancock Bank. with
counsel.
3. The Fourteenth Court oi‘/\ppea|s issued its Memorandum Opinion in Goad v. Hancock.
NO. l4—l3~t)t)8(i1—(‘V. on April 6. 2015.
4. Petitioner's motion for "rehezu'ing and en banc consideration" was denied on July 14. 2015.
5. Petitioner's petition for review is due in the Supreme Court on August 28. 20l 5. forty-five
days from the July 14. denial.
6. Petitioner requests an additional 60 days to file the petition for review. extending the time
until October 27. 2015. No prior requests have been made to extend time to tile the petition for
review.
7. /\Ll(IIIi()lI£Ii time is needed for the following reasons:
21. Petitioner has been disabled For more than 7 years. The disability stems from prior spinal
injuries. at stroke with subsequent heart surgery. and posttraumatic stress disorder. These disabilities
are \\ ell defined under the Ameriez1n‘s with Disability Act. Normally. the petitioner lags behind or
takes about twice the normal amount ol‘timc to prepare pleadings. however. the last few months
have been very difticult and has further limited the petitioner's workload.
b. Petitioner is working on multiple briefs and one to the U.S. Supreme Court. One example
is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A."
Conclusion
8. Given petitioner's health issues and work backlog. it is impossible for him to submit a
meaningful petition for review within the normal time limitations.
Declaration
9. David Goad. if requested to do so. could and would competently
1. testify under oath.
based upon my personal knowledge. to the matters stated herein:
The information provided in the PE'l‘lTIONER'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME
TO FILE PETITION FOR REVIEW and is true.
I freely swear under the penalty of perjury under the Laws ofthe United States of
America that my above statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Request
it). Petitioner requests the Supreme Court grant 60 additional days to lile his petition for
review.
Respectfully submitted.
David Goad, pro se
CERTIFICATE!) OF SERVICE
certify under the penalty of perjury that sent a copy of the PETITIONER'S MOTION TO
I I
EXTEND TIME TO FILE I’E'l‘lTI()N FOR REVIEW to each ofthose listed below on August
2 20l S. The method ofdelivery is noted below each name. When sent by "U.S. Mail," the document(s)
.
were placed into an envelope postage prepaid and deposited into a box which is used solely for the
collection ofmail by the US. postal service.
Craig R. Denum
I757 Katy Freeway.. Ste l()l()
l
Houston. Texas 77079-1732
U.S. Mail
David Goad
jfaurtb Glluurt at Qppeals
5am $§Intom'o, tlliexas
August 12, 2015
No. 04-15-00218-CV
David GOAD,
Appellant
V.
Eric STREY and Does 1 through l0,
Appellees
No. 04~15-00219-CV
David GOAD,
Appellant
V.
Jamie OSBORNE
Appellee
From the County Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
No. 2014-CV-0392 and 2014-CV-0393
Trial Court
Honorable Robin V. Dwyer, Judge Presiding
ORDER
The brief of appellant David Goad in these consolidated appeals was due July 20, 2015.
Neither the brief nor a motion for extension of time was filed. On July 23, 2015, we ordered
Goad to file, not later than August 3, 2015, his appel1ant’s brief and a written response
reasonably explaining his failure to timely file the brief. On August 6, the court received Goad’s
motion for extension of time to file his brief and a request for a copy of the record.
We grant the motion.We order the Clerk of this court to send a copy of the appellate
record to appellant onCD Rom. Appellant is advised that if he desires a supplemental clerk’s
record, he must request the supplement in writing from the trial court clerk and file a copy of the
request in this court. Any such request will not be grounds for extending the due date for
appellant’s brief.
2‘/:(¢:'4"
We order appellant's brief due September 18, 2015 (60 days after the original due date).
No be granted absent a motion showing of extraordinary circumstances.
further extensions will
If the brief or a motion not electronically filed or received in this court by September 18, 2015,
is
the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. The mailbox rule will not apply.
%/rwnmll.
Luz Eleh/a D. Chapa, Justice I
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 12th day of August, 2015.
‘\‘“||iI|UHI][,
\ F ”I/
§‘\"s’é:$.._,O.o--¢~v_A:.,'fD<:'?{(‘,.‘ __.
~
xs
O ‘"57 €45. 59‘
o
$0 %
.
-
Keith B. Hottle'
.
V
9)
§'‘ * * gg
Cl
Clerk of Court
2'. :.=-
-—
‘wk
1;
I $e§
"""r7 '
r=
‘ ~‘I~‘«‘§
’
"’«‘IInmu\\\‘\\“‘
David Goad
August 25. 2015
Mr. Blake A. l-lawthorne. (flerk
Supreme Court oI'Tcxas
PO. Box 12248
Austin. Texas 7871 I
Re: Petition for Review in
Goad v. Hancock
Hello Mr. Hawthorne.
Please lile this new issue upon receipt. A declaration to proceed In
Fomm Pc/uperis is also
provided for your consideration. If any question arise please contact
me.
591?
David Goad