Sharon Lee Hanson v. Guy Robb Cowen

ACCEPTED 03-14-00574-CV 4116579 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/11/2015 4:49:16 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK NO. 03-14-00574-CV ________________________________________________________________________ FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AUSTIN, TEXAS FOR THE 2/17/2015 8:56:00 AM THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS JEFFREY D. KYLE AT AUSTIN Clerk _____________________________________________________________ SHARON LEE HANSON, Appellant, vs. GUY ROBB COWEN, Appellee. _____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 33rd Judicial District Court of Burnet County, Texas Honorable Daniel H. Mills, Presiding Judge _____________________________________________________________ BRIEF OF APPELLEE _____________________________________________________________ Marie Eisela Galindo State Bar No. 00796592 639 Heights Boulevard Houston, Texas 77007 Tel: 713.299.1510 Fax: 713.651.0776 megalindo@thegalindolawfirm.com ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE GUY ROBB COWEN OBJECTION TO ORAL ARGUMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Appellant's Brief at VI so excluded pursuant to TRAP 38.2(a)(1)(A). INDEX OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v ISSUES PRESENTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . v OBJECTION TO ORAL ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . vi - 9 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 PRAYER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES AUTHORITY PAGE(S) Alexander v. Hagedorn, 226 S.W.2d 996, 998 (1950).................................... 16 Gold v. Gold, 145 S.W.3d 212, 213 (Tex. 2004)............................................. 16 In re E.A., 287 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Tex. 2009)........................................................... 15 Nguyen v. Intertex, Inc. 93 S.W.3d 288, 293(Tex.App.-Houston[14th Dist.] 2002, no pet)...................................................................... 12 Smith v. Brown, 51 S.W.3d 376, 381 (Tex.App.-Houston[1st Dist.] 2001, pet. denied).............................................................. 13 Ryland Enter v. Weatherspoon, 355 S.W.3d 664, 665-66 (Tex. 2011).............. 13 Warren v. Walter, 414 S.W.2d 423 (Tex. 1967)................................................. 12 TEXAS CONSTITUTION, STATUTES AND RULES TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1 ….................................................................................... 13 TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(1) …........................................................................... 13 TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(B)...........................................................................13 TEX. R. CIV. P. 21 …...................................................................................... 14 TEX. R. CIV. P. 21(a) ….................................................................................. 14 TEX. R. CIV. P. 24…........................................................................................ 14 TEX. R. CIV. P. 45 …....................................................................................... 16 TEX. R. CIV. P. 71 …....................................................................................... 16 iii TEX. R. CIV. P. 120 …..................................................................................... 15 TEX. R. CIV. P. 121 …..................................................................................... 15 TEX. R. CIV. P. 122…...................................................................................... 15 TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a(5)...................................................................................13 TEX. R. CIV. P. 314 …..................................................................................... 13, 16 TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(a) …...............................................................................13 TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(d) …...............................................................................16 TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(g) …...............................................................................16 iv STATEMENT OF THE CASE On or about August 6, 2013, Appellee Guy Robb Cowen (hereinafter “Cowen”) filed his Bill of Review challenging the adverse judgment on June 24, 2013. See Hanson's Appendix Exhibit A and Cowen's Appendix Exhibit E. On November 20, 2013, the Court set the Bill of Review for hearing on January 8, 2014, after input from the parties as to scheduling. See Cowen's Appendix Exhibit A. Over three (3) months later, or on April 30, 2014, the trial court entered an Order granting Plaintiff's Bill of Review. See Hanson's Exhibit C. Months after the hearing and three (3) days after the Order is entered, on May 2, 2014, Appellant Sharon Lee Hanson (hereinafter “Hanson”) filed an Answer to the Bill of Review. See Cowen's Appendix Exhibit B. Two months later, Hanson then filed a Motion for New Trial on July 18, 2014. See Hanson's Exhibit D. On August 27, 2014, the trial court denies Hanson's Motion for New Trial. See Hanson's Exhibit E. On September 3, 2014, Hanson filed her Notice of Appeal with this Court. ISSUES PRESENTED ISSUE NUMBER ONE ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED IN OPENING BRIEF ARE WAIVED. THE FIRST v ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT IS WHETHER HANSON'S CLAIM THAT THE COURT LACKED PERSONAL JURISDICTION IS TIME-BARRED AND FRIVOLOUS AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, WHETHER HANSON WAIVED THIS ARGUMENT GIVEN HER AND HER REPRESENTATION'S CONDUCT? ISSUE NUMBER TWO ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED IN OPENING BRIEF ARE WAIVED. THE SECOND ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT IS WHETHER HANSON'S CLAIM THAT THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN GRANTING THE BILL OF REVIEW IS TIME-BARRED AND FRIVOLOUS AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, WHETHER THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT COWEN IS ENTITLED TO DUE PROCESS TO PURSUE HIS BILL OF REVIEW AND THAT EQUITABLE RELIEF IS WARRANTED? OBJECTION TO ORAL ARGUMENT Appellee Cowen understands that Hanson has a right to oral argument absent certain reasons identified in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 39.1(a) – (d). Cowen respectfully objects for each of these reasons to oral argument in this case. STATEMENT OF FACTS Cowen and Hanson agreed in April, 2007, to jointly purchase a home and list Hanson on the mortgage if Cowen paid significant amounts towards the purchase and mortgage. Cowen and Hanson purchased the home and moved in together on or about May, 2007. Hanson conceded having made this same agreement with another man before and she kept that home. (RR at V.4 at Cowen Exhibit 3:21:7- 22:8). Almost four (4) years later, on or about Thanksgiving Day, 2010, acrimony vi ensued and Hanson asked Cowen to leave. (RR at V.4 at Cowen Exhibit 3:14:3). Litigation followed the separation. See Hanson's Appendix Exhibit A providing history to Cause No. 41,742 from Cause No. 38,316 and (RR at V.4 at Cowen Exhibit 3). More specifically, as related to the issues herein, on December 7, 2010, Cowen sued Hanson in Cause No. 38,316 regarding the fraudulent representations she made regarding the home purchase and provided the sums spent towards purchase, renovations, upkeep and in mortgage payments: an initial downpayment of $41,378.44; $105,246.63 for indoor/outdoor removal/renovations/upkeep; $47,450.00 in mortgage payments; and $7,000.00 in property taxes. See Hanson's Appendix Exhibit A. Shortly thereafter, at a hearing held January 5, 2011 before another court, Hanson confirmed the agreement and representation in testifying: Robb put down the down payment. I don't recall exactly how much it was. Our deal was he would use the down payment and I would use my credit and we would live in the house together, make it liveable for the two of us, and then when --- if the relationship didn't work out and we had to go separate ways we agreed we would sell the house and split the profit. That was our deal. And we've never got any of that in writing, but it was a handshake deal between the two of us. That's the deal that I am more than willing to honor and I will sell that house to anybody that has the money to pay off the note and I will split the profit with him and walk away. (emphasis added)(RR at V.2:18:18-19:25 and V.4 at Exhibit 3:23:2-13). 7 After discovery, negotiations and the need for a restraining order to allow Cowen to remove his personal items from the home, the matter was set on the dismissal docket on May 16, 2013. See Hanson's Appendix Exhibit A at 1-4. Neither Cowen nor his attorney received notice of the dismissal docket. See Cowen's Appendix Exhibit F and Id. On June 24, 2013, neither Hanson nor Cowen's counsel appeared and the trial court dismissed Cowen's suit against Hanson. See Cowen's Appendix Exhibit F and Id. Immediately upon learning of the judgment from Cowen, a Bill of Review was filed on or about August 6, 2013. See Hanson's Appendix Exhibit A. Defense counsel was served with the revised Bill of Review. (RR at V.2:14:4-16:11 and 17:14-20:13). On November 20, 2013, after the parties consulted, the Court set the Bill of Review for hearing on January 8, 2014. See Cowen's Appendix Exhibit A. Hanson and her attorney appeared at said hearing. (RR at V.2:1-29:10). At the hearing, Hanson never moved to continue said hearing. (RR at V.2:1- 29:10). Hanson requested instead that the Bill of Review be denied. Id. On April 30, 2014, the trial court entered an Order granting Plaintiff's Bill of Review. See Hanson's Appendix Exhibit C. Three (3) days after the Order is entered, on May 2, 2014, Hanson filed a 8 written Answer. (emphasis added). See Cowen's Appendix Exhibit B. Hanson then filed an untimely Motion for New Trial approximately eighty (80) days after entry of the Order granting relief on July 18, 2014, which is 78 days after she filed her Answer. See Hanson's Appendix Exhibit D. The Motion for New Trial is based exclusively upon the testimony of trial and now, appellate counsel, that he never received the court's order granting Cowen's Bill of Review. See Hanson's Appendix Exhibit D, RR at V.3:5:24-7:16 and Cowen's Appendix Exhibits C and D. There is no independent proof in support of the Motion for New Trial and the two (2) sworn statements appear to differ in one significant respect: viewing of Clerk's file on April 29, 2014. Id. On August 27, 2014, the trial court, after allowing for briefing, denied Hanson's Motion for New Trial. See Hanson's Appendix Exhibit E. Appellant Hanson now files an untimely and frivolous appeal, on September 3, 2014, from an adverse order entered April 30, 2014, wherein the Court found she had appeared to respond to the Bill of Review and that the Bill of Review should be granted. See Hanson's Appendix Exhibit C and Cowen's Appendix Exhibit B. Hanson does not appeal the denial of her untimely Motion for New Trial. See Appellant's brief wherein issues raised are challenges to the two (2) inherent and explicit findings in the court's Order granting Cowen's Bill of Review on April 30, 9 2014. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The instant appeal is time-barred and frivolous as to both claims for relief. Hanson is either 96 days too late in filing her Notice of Appeal or is precluded from challenging the Order in question because she must wait for a final judgment when a Bill of Review has been granted. In other words, Hanson is precluded from contesting the April 30, 2014 order at this time or she has sat on her rights and did not pursue an appeal of the unfavorable Order granting Cowen's Bill of Review which was entered approximately eighty (80) days before she filed her Motion for New Trial; 78 days after she filed an Answer; and 191 days after the January 8, 2014 hearing which is at the center of her appeal. It is clear that the Motion for New Trial was an untimely and frivolous filing at the trial court level used to revert to the instant claims that were time-barred months before or are before the court prematurely without a final judgment. Hanson attaches the Motion for New Trial and the Order denying said Motion in her Appendix to her brief, but its denial is not raised as an issue before this court. The issues raised in Hanson's appeal expressly pertain to the appearance finding by the trial court and the granting of Cowen's Bill of Review. In the alternative and without waiving the foregoing, Hanson and her 10 attorney's conduct confirmed appearance in the lawsuit when they appeared for a hearing, set months in advance with their input, for the Bill of Review that was served on her trial counsel six (6) months prior to said hearing. Moreover, in the alternative and without waiving the foregoing arguments, Cowen is not absolutely precluded from due process and equitable relief by way of a Bill of Review after the court lost plenary power. His Bill of Review demonstrates why the relief requested squarely addresses why his facts, procedural posture, merits of his original case, record before the court and why, for his case, it is the remedy pursued necessitating the favorable finding of the court on April 30, 2014. Hanson is precluded from raising her claims and they must be rejected. In the alternative and without waiving the foregoing, her claims are wholly without merit. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ISSUE NUMBER ONE ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED IN OPENING BRIEF ARE WAIVED. THE FIRST ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT IS WHETHER HANSON'S CLAIM THAT THE COURT LACKED PERSONAL JURISDICTION IS TIME-BARRED AND FRIVOLOUS AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, WHETHER HANSON WAIVED THIS ARGUMENT GIVEN HER AND HER REPRESENTATION'S CONDUCT? ISSUE NUMBER TWO 11 ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED IN OPENING BRIEF ARE WAIVED. THE SECOND ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT IS WHETHER HANSON'S CLAIM THAT THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN GRANTING THE BILL OF REVIEW IS TIME-BARRED AND FRIVOLOUS AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, WHETHER THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT COWEN IS ENTITLED TO DUE PROCESS TO PURSUE HIS BILL OF REVIEW AND THAT EQUITABLE RELIEF IS WARRANTED? A. BOTH CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ARE TIME-BARRED AND FRIVOLOUS 1. Claims for Relief are Time-Barred as Too Late or Premature Hanson raises claims for relief that were squarely addressed by the trial court after the January 8, 2014, Bill of Review Hearing and decided on April 30, 2014 by written order. In that order, Judge Mills granted Cowen's Bill of Review. See Hanson's Appendix Exhibit C. If a court grants the bill of review, that order is not appealable because it is interlocutory. Warren v. Walter, 414 S.W.2d 423 (Tex. 1967). It can be appealed only with a final judgment on the merits of the underlying case and is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Nguyen v. Intertex, Inc. 93 S.W.3d 288, 293(Tex.App.-Houston[14th Dist.] 2002, no pet). If the court should find that it can review a grant of a Bill of Review prior to a final judgment, then Hanson has filed her appeal too late. Three (3) days after the trial court entered this Order, on May 2, 2014, Hanson filed her written Answer and Motion for Summary Judgment. See Cowen's Appendix Exhibit B and the Clerk's 12 Record in Cause Number 41,742. Hanson did not file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the challenged order. Ryland Enter v. Weatherspoon, 355 S.W.3d 664, 665- 66 (Tex. 2011). Instead, months later, she files her Motion for New Trial contesting the entry of the April 30, 2014 Order basing it on her attorney's conflicting sworn testimony as to whether he looked in the court file on April 29, 2014. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 306(a)(5) and 329b(a) and Hanson's Appendix Exhibit D and Cowen's Appendix Exhibits C (written oath of attorney) and D (testimony in court under oath). Upon the denial of her untimely Motion for New Trial, Hanson attempts to use it as a means to challenge the April 30, 2014 Order, but she is approximately 96 days too late in filing her Notice of Appeal on September 3, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(B)(mandating that appellate claims be timely made), 26.1 and 26.1(a)(1). 2. Claims for Relief are Frivolous Hanson's appeal is frivolous. Cowen understands that the court reviews the record from Hanson's viewpoint and decides whether she had reasonable grounds to believe the judgment could be reversed. Smith v. Brown, 51 S.W.3d 376, 381 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. denied). First and foremost, it is unreasonable to pursue this appeal when she can settle the suit after testifying under oath that they made “the deal” to sell the house and split the profits in the event the relationship soured. (RR at V.2:18:18-19:25 and V.4 at Exhibit 3:23:2- 13 13) and TEX. R. CIV. P. 314. Moreover, it is unreasonable for Hanson to argue she never appeared in this suit and the court erred on April 30, 2014, in rendering that finding and then filing a written Answer a few days later to only argue herein four (4) months later that the trial court was wrong in exercising personal jurisdiction. Additionally, it is unreasonable for Hanson to claim there was no notice of the new suit, when the new suit was in hand for at least six (6) months prior to the underlying January 8, 2014 hearing and then challenging the court's authority to rule nine (9) months later on that suit in an untimely appeal filed on September 3, 2014, over one (1) year after her attorney had the Bill of Review in hand. Furthermore, there is nothing reasonable about arguing in her appellate brief that the court abused its discretion in ruling on April 30, 2014, when it should have continued the proceeding, wherein she never requested a continuance. All told, Hanson's two (2) claims for relief should be rejected as time-barred for being premature or too late and frivolous. B. IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND WITHOUT WAIVING THE FOREGOING, APPEARANCE ENTERED BY HANSON WAIVES FIRST CLAIM In the alternative and without waiving the foregoing, the first issue for review is whether Hanson and her attorney waived citation and entered an appearance by their actions. The Clerk had a duty to assign the Bill of Review a file number. TEX. R. CIV. P. 24. Cowen had a duty to serve Hanson or her 14 authorized representative. TEX. R. CIV. P. 21 and 21(a). According to Rule 21(a), service can be presumed on the attorney of record. See Hanson's Appendix Exhibit A and In re E.A., 287 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Tex. 2009). A Defendant's appearance before a court generally indicates a submission to the court's jurisdiction. TEX. R. CIV. P. 120. In the instant case, Hanson averred in court that she would have filed an answer or entered an appearance denying the applicability of a Bill of Review if she had been served with right Bill of Review in this cause number, but that position is disingenuous given that any written appearance, under the wrong cause number, was not made until January 3, 2014. See CR 38,316 and (RR at V.2:26:22- 28:1). Moreover, Hanson filed an Answer in response to the Bill of Review, conceding jurisdiction and waiving service. See Cowen's Appendix Exhibit B and TEX. R. CIV. P. 121. Furthermore, even if Hanson had succeeded on January 8, 2014 in asserting that her and her attorney's appearance did not constitute service, she had “twenty (20) days after the Monday next” from January 8, 2014, to respond to the suit. TEX. R. CIV. P. 122. Approximately 115 days after the hearing, Hanson filed her Answer and a Motion for Summary Judgment. Consequently, Hanson wrongly avers that only a scintilla of evidence supported personal jurisdiction where there was significant law and facts supporting the trial court's decision entered on April 30, 2014. 15 C. IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND WITHOUT WAIVING THE FOREGOING, TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE DISCRETION IN GRANTING COWEN'S BILL OF REVIEW In the alternative and without waiving the foregoing, the next issue for consideration is whether the trial judge abused his discretion when he granted Cowen's Bill of Review. A trial judge's authority is broad. A bill of review is designed to prevent manifest injustice. Alexander v. Hagedorn, 226 S.W.2d 996, 998 (1950). “All pleadings shall be construed as to do substantial justice.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 45. A court has broad authority to construe the pleading different from what it is entitled, “if justice so requires,” and in this case, the Court elected not to construe Cowen's Bill of Review as a Motion for New Trial as Hanson suggests. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 71. A trial court has discretion to grant a Bill of Review for “sufficient cause.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(d) and (g) and see TEX. R. CIV. P. 314. Cowen was not required to pursue a restricted appeal as a prerequisite to his Bill of Review. Gold v. Gold, 145 S.W.3d 212, 213 (Tex. 2004). A party may pursue a restricted appeal if the party believes it can satisfy the elements, but frequently the bill of review proffers some advantages. It allows the trial court an opportunity to correct the judgment without having to engage in an appeal. Id. at 214. In a bill of review, a court may consider all the facts but not in a restricted appeal. Id. Discovery is available in a bill of review, but not in a restricted appeal. Id. A bill of review allows a party to more easily obtain injunctive relief, if 16 necessary. In conclusion, the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion. PRAYER For these reasons, GUY ROBB COWEN, Appellee, requests that this court affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand it to the trial court for further relief. Appellee also requests that he be awarded appellate attorney's fees against Appellant as she brought a frivolous appeal and to provide him any and all other relief to which he may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, By:_/s/ Marie E. Galindo__________ MARIE EISELA GALINDO Attorney at Law 639 Heights Boulevard Houston, Texas 77007 Telephone No. 713.299.1510 Facsimile No. 713.651.0776 State Bar No. 00796592 megalindo@thegalindolawfirm.com ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE, GUY ROBB COWEN CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this day, February 10, 2015, the undersigned counsel provided a copy of the document referenced-above and related Appendix to Appellant to Attorney Mr. Richard Mock, Appellant's counsel, via electronic filing and email at 17 richard@mockandbrown.com, mailing address 400 S. Main St. Burnet, TX 78611. __/s/ Marie E. Galindo_______________ MARIE EISELA GALINDO CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4, I hereby certify that this brief contains 2632 words (excluding the caption, table of contents, table of authorities, signature, proof of service, certification, and certificate of compliance). This is a computer- generated document created in Microsoft Word, using 14-point typeface for all text, except for footnotes which are in 12-point typeface. In making this certificate of compliance, I am relying on the word count provided by the software used to prepare the document. __/s/ Marie E. Galindo_______________ MARIE EISELA GALINDO 18 APPELLEE'S APPENDIX APPELLEE'S APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS A – Notice of Setting for Bill of Review Hearing B – Hanson Answer C – Affidavit Attached to Hanson's Motion for New Trial D – Testimony of Attorney Richard Mock under Oath – V.3:5:23-7:16 E – Docket Sheet for Dismissal Docket with Order Noting Neither Side Appeared F – Notice of Dismissal Docket C A U SE N o 4 1, 7 4 2 . GUY R O BB C O W E N I N T H E D I ST R I C T C O U R T § Pl a i n t i f f , 0 . VS 33 Fd C I A L D I ST R I C T § J U D I . • . SH A R O N L E E H A N S O N Defen d a n t § B U R N E T C O U N T Y , T E X A S < UU O F SE T T I N G F O R p l A I N T I F F - O F R EV l m æ TH u al : * 1I F I C A T E m C ON B ef o r e th e C o u r t i s a N o t ic e o f S et tin g to h e ar P la in t if f s B i l l o f R e v ie w b a se d o n o n e o f s e v er a l d at e s p r o v i d e d b y th e C o u r t A d m i n i st r a t o r f o r t h e p ar ti es t o c o n s i d er , T he p ar tie s h av e agreed th at th ey a re av a i lab le o n Jan u ary 8 , 2 0 14 , a t 1 : 3 0 p . m . To b e h ear d re g ar d in g P la in t if f s B il l o f R ev i ew . T he p a r tie s r e sp e c t f u l ly a sk fo r an h o u r fo r sa id h ear in g . A f te r d u e c o n s i d e r a t iI o n , t he C 0 u r t f iI n d s t h e N o t i c e o f S e t t i n g i s l e g a l l y s u f H c i e n t c o . th e C o u r t sh a l l c o n s i d e r P l a i n t i f f s B i l l o f R e v i e w . SI G N E D O N T H E AY OF . . ødA* vl m , 2 0 1 3 . P RE DI NG JU DC E Respect f u’ " Su b m itte d , By : _ / 5/ M ar ie E . Ga lin d o H At at 63 9 H e i g h t s H o u st o n , Tex as 7 700 7 Te lep h one N os , (4 32 ) 3 6 6 , . 83 00/ ( 7 13 ) 2 99 , . 15 10 CO N FO RM IN G CO PY D ’ NO c f M e in th e i o L e rk Bu r n e t C o u n t y D i s t r i c t O O RI GIN A L CO PY N OT c o M PA RED T O cwa1keDi st r i ct aek . Fa c s i m ile N o . (7 13) 65 1 0776 . , St a t e B ar N o . 00796 592 JA CK Q T ID W E L L . A tt o r n e y a t L a w 3800 E 42 n d S t Fe e t , St e 608 . . CH A SE PL A Z A B U I L D I N G O de s s a Te x a s 7 9 7 6 2 , T e l e p h o n e N o (4 32 ) 5 52 0 4 4 1 . - Fa c si m ile N o . (4 3 2 ) 3 6 7 88 53- St a t e B ar N o . 2 00 2 00 0 0 AT T O RN EY S F O R C O W EN CE R T I F I C A T E O F SE R V I C E On th i s d a y , N o v e m be r 13 , 2 0 13 , 20 13 , t h e u n d er si g n ed c o u n se l p r o v id ed a c o p y o f th e dQ ˙ um n t re f ren ed - a bo v e to M r . Ric h a r d M ock v i 0 C E R T I F æ 1. \ 1 u o F C O Ie I a al : B # t k u ’ On O c to b er 17 . 2 0 13 J a c k . Q . T id w e l l, s o f f i c e s p o k e w i t h R i c h a r d M o c k s a s s i s t a n t re ar d in g d a te o p ti o n s f o r sett i n g th e B i ll o f R ev iew an d th e p arties a g re e d to a settin g o n a Ja n u a r y 8 , 2 0 14 a t 1 :3 0 p . m . m ˆ E E GA L IND O . 2 No . 41 , 7 4 2 GUY R OB B C OWE N x I N T HE DI ST R I CT C OU R T VS x B U RN E T COUN T Y T E X A S , S HA RO N L EE HA N S ON x 33 RD J U D I C I A L D I S T R I C T ’ DE - A LLT s O R I G I N M A N S W E R T O T HE H ON O R A B L E J U DG E OF S I D C OU R T : C OM E S N OW , S H A R O N L E E H A N S O N , D e f e n d a n t , +n r e s p o n s e ’ t o Pl a i n t i f f s B 土 工 工 o £ R e v : e w f : - Le d h e r e i n d o e s h e r e b y f : 1 e h e r O r i g i n a n s we r h e r e o f a n d a s g r o u n d s t h e r e o f w o u l d - - s h o w t h e C o u r t a s f o l l o w s : De f e n d a n t d e n i e s e a c h a n d e v e r y , a 1 1 a n d s i n g u . La r , t h e ’ a l l e g a t i o n s Pe c o n t a i n e d + n P 1 a : n t : f f s Or g i n a l t : t : o n a n d d e m a n d s s t r i c t p r o o f t h e r e o f b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e . De f e n d a n t d e n e s t h a t P 1 a i n t : f f : s e n t : t 1 e d t o a B i l l o f R e v i e w + n t h i s m a t t e r . Nl o r e p a r t : c u l a r l y , P 1 a : n t : f f ’ d e n i e s t h a t a t t h e t i m e o f f i . Li n g P 1 a i n t : f f s M o t : o n f o r Bi l l o f R e v : e w , t h a t n o o t h e r l e g a l r e m e d y w a s a v a i l a b l e t o p La- i n t i f f t o t r y t o s e t a s : d e t h e O r d e r o f D : s m : s s a : L d a t e d J u n e 2 4 , 2 0 1 3 . I n s t e a d , D e f e n d a n t w o u l d s h o w t h e C o u r t t h a t P l a i n t i f f f a i l e d t o e x e r c i s e d u e d i l i g e n c e t o f i . Le a Mo t i o n f o r N e w T r : a l u n d e r t h e e x t e n s i o n s c o n t e m p l a t e d b y Ru l e 3 0 6 (a ) . I n t h : s c a s e t h e e x t e n s : o n s p r o v i d e d u n d e r v e d N o t : c e o f t h e s u c h r u l e s , i f P l a i n t i f f h a d n o t r e c e i D: s m i s s a 1 J u d g m e n t w : t h : n 2 0 d a y s a f t e r t h e d a t e o £ s a : d J u d gm e n t , h a d n o t y e t e x p : r e d w h e n P 1 a i n t : f £ £ i l e d h e r Mo t i o n f o r B : 1 1 o f R e v : e w . Be c a u s e o f P 1 a : n t f f f a i - Li n g t o e x e r c i s e h e r r : g h t s u n d e r t h e x t e n s i o n o f t i m e p e r i o d o f CO NFO RM i NG CO PY " ’ cu I J% x w Bu r n e t C o u n t y D i s t r i c t c le r k CO PY NOT CO M PA RED TO O R IG I N A L C W a 1 k e Di s M c t C le r k ’ Ru B中 0 6 ( ) , P 1 a : . Nt l f f s M o t i o n f o r B . 1 1 o f R e v i e w s h o u l d b ‹/ Bn / e c \ , W 1F, E F OR E , P E M0 S E S C ON S I DE R E D , D e f e n d a n t , S H A R O N L E E r BAAN SQN A t h a t P 1 a / n t : f f e M o t : n f o r B i l l o f Re v i e w b e p r a y _ - o d n/ d . Re s p e c t f u l l y s u b m i t t e d , L AW OF F I CE S OF MOC K & B R O WN At t o r n e y s a t L a w 400 So u t h M a i n Bu r n e t , T e x a s 7 8 6 1 1 Ph o n e ( 5 1 2 ) 7 5 6 - 2931 Fa x ( 5 1 2 ) 7 5 6 - 2933 R I C HA R St a t e B a r N o . 14242500 CE RT I F I CA T E OF S E RV I C E t r u e a n d c o r r e c t c o p y o f t h e . h e r e b y c e r t : f y t h a t a A f a x e d gi w a s • d Or n s w e r ’ • Ln De f a n t n a v e a n d f o r e g o - - ab - g . E r 1 . s 6 3 9 H e i h t s t o Ms , Ma r i e E . Ga l iLn d o , A t t o r n e y a t L a w , g n d Bl v d . Ho u s t o n , T e x a s 7 7 0 0 7 a n d 3 8 0 0 E . 42 S t r e e t , S u i t e r J a c k Q T i d w e L1 P L L C 608 , 9 7 a n d t o M r . , , - O d e s s a T e x a s 7 6 2 . , n d At t o r n e y a t L a w , 3 8 0 0 E . 42 S t r e e t , S u i t e 6 D 8 , O d e s s a , T x a s 7 9 7 62 , o n t h i s t h e / d a y o f M a y , 2 0 1 4 . R I C HA R D D . MO C \\ H EXHI B I T A T HE STA T E OF T EXA S CO U N T Y OF B URN E T s o n a 1 t B E F OR E ME , t h e u n d e r s :t g n e d a u t h o r i t y , p e r y m e f i r s t d u l y s wo r n a p p e a r e d R I C HA R D D . MOC K w h o b e i n g b y u p o n h : s o a t h d o e s s t a t e a s £ o 1 1 o w s : d " r e c e i v e n o t c e t h a t t h i s C o u r t h a d g r a n t o I d d n o t ’ o n A p r i l 2 9 2 0 1 4 , u n t t Ju l y P1 a i n t : £ f s B1 1 o £ R e v i e w , ’ B : 1 1 o f O r d e r G r a n t : n g P 1 a i n t / f f s 17 , 2014 w h e n a c o p y o f ’ ’ D e f c: n d a n t 9 o n s e t o Re v : e w w a s a t t a c h e d t o P 1 a : n t i f £ s R e s p h t o t h e D : s t r 1 c Mo t : o n f o r S u mm a r y J u d g m e n t . I a d g o n e r t o : ’ k t h e f i e j u s t a f e w d a y s p r 1 o c o c h e c - - t e r k s O f f : c e t h a d b e e n a n O r d e r t o s e e :L £ pr i 1 29 , 2 0 1 4 a n d c h e c k e d ’ :L 1 c a t t h a t O r d e r i n t h e C o u r t s f Th e r e w a s n o g r a n t e d . : A n s w e r t o t h e 1 a w s u l . t a n d a n d f i Le d a n t i m e . I p r e p a r e d 4 a n d o b t a l . N (: d a o n M a y 2 2 0 1 S u r nm a r y J u d g m e n t , Mo t : o n f o r 2 3 J u d g m e n t f o r J u l y , M o t i o n f o r S u mm a r y s e t t / n g f o r s a : d s a i d A n s w e r A t t i m e w a s I e v e n u p o n f i l ng o £ 2014 . n o , a n O r d e r not £i ed t h a t f o r S u mm a r y J u d g m e n t , a n d M o t i o n " p La : n t : f f ’ s B : 1 - o £ Re v i e w h a d b e e n gr ant ec . Gr a n t : n g - f u r t h e r s a y e t h n o t . A f f / a n t S I GN E D J u - - y I t , 2 0 1 4 . t h e s a : d R I C HA R D T0 B E F OR E ME b y AND S WO R N s u B SCRI B E D w i t n e s s m y h a n d c e r t : f y w h : c h 18 - 0 1 4 t o 2 , D . MO C K o n J u - L y , a n d 1 s t u £ £ a n d t h e n I g u e s s I s gned a n o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e b 1 l t o £ 2 r e v i ew 七h a t Ms . Ga l i n d o f : ]. E d : +s t h a t c o r r e c t ? ’ 3 MS . GA L I N D O : T h a t s c o r r e c t . ’ ki n g t h a t An d y o u a c T HE C OU R T : Ok a y . n ow r e a t t 4 5 o r d e r , M r . Mo c k ? n e w 七r + a + o n I 七 , a mo t i o n f o r MR MO C K : I f i l e d 6 . 7 Ju d ge . A 11 r : g h t . Wh a t d o y o u 8 T HE C OU R T : Ok a y . w a n t - - ha t y o u w t h a t o r o u w a n t t o c e 1 me a b o u t 9 w a n t y - - - - o n M r Mo c k ? p u t . w a n t c o , 10 e v i d e n c e y o u ’ n e e d t o Y e s i r I 1 L - - I j u s t MO C K . : s . 11 MR . , 12 c e s c i £ y . r i g h 七 COUR T A 1 1 . T HE : 13 s w o r n ) 14 ( A 七t o r n e y r H o n o r . MO C K : I d o Y o u MR . , 15 r i g h t Go a h e a d . T HE COUR T : A 1 1 . 16 n a m e i s Le a s e t h e C o u r t , m y MO C K : I £ : c p MR . . 17 f r o m h e r e o r u p w a n t m e t o t e s 七i f y R: c h a r d 1ao c k . Do y o u 18 19 t h e r e ? ’ i n e J u s t s p e a k u p R E P OR T E R : Y o u r e £ . T HE C OUR T 20 21 p l e a s e . s p e a k l o u d Y e a h j u s t a s l o n g a s y o u T HE C OUR T : , 22 e n o u g h t h e c a n h e a r y o u . 23 My n ame j s R i c h a r d Mo c k . I MR . MOCK : Ok a y . - 24 t h : s m a t t e r Wh e n I r e c e i v e d a H a n s o n + n . 25 r e p r e s e n t Sh a r o n J ENN I F E R M . F E ST , C S R ’ i £o r b : 1 1 o £ r e v i e w t h e c a u s e n umb e r 1 c o p y o £ p ] . A : n t i £ £ s m o t - o n I w a s n o t aw a r e u n t i l I b jL] 1 o £ r e v j ew w a s 3 8 3 16 . 2 o n t h a t . _ b 土工工 o f r e v i ew o n t h e h e a r : n g f o r t h a t u p + n c o u r t o n 3 s h ow e d m a r k e d t h r o u g h h e c l e r k h a d + n f a c t , t Bt h 1 4 t h a t 4 J a n u a r y , 2 0 , c a u s e n u mb e r o f : t a n e w N u mb e r 3 8 3 1 6 a n d h a d g : v e n 5 Ca u s e o f r e v i e w b e 七h a t t h e b i l l I had £ : 1e d a r e q u e s t 6 4 17 42 . t h a t + n C a u s e a n d I f : 1 e d l a c k o £ j u r : s d : c t : o n 7 di - s m i s s e d f o r i n a p p e a r a n c e I m a d e a n h h a d At n o 七 主m e , t h o u g , 8 Nu mb e r 3 8 3 1 6 . e d w i t h e e n s e r v c l i e n t b r h a d m N u mb e r 4 1 7 4 2 , n o y 9 Ca u s e t h a t m y a s a r u e d i £ f h g i n 4 1 7 4 2 . T he p ]: a : n t 10 c t a t +o n f o r l a c k o f c o d : s m : s s a r g u e my mo t i o n c o 11 a p p e a r a n c e e t h e Co u r t N u mb e r 3 8 3 1 6 w a s - - gav n + n C a u s e 12 j u r i s d i c t i o o 4 1 7 4 2 A t n N u mb e r . e u n d e r C a u s e a s a n a p p e a r a n c 13 5ur i s dccon + n C a u s e m a k e a n a p p e a r a n c e a p p e a r o r I i n t e n d c o t i me d d 14 J a n u a r y Bt h . 4 1 7 4 2 o n - - Nu mb e r z y a u " o f a n A p r 1 Jt 1 t h e n o t i c e Th e f i r s t I g o t 16 ’ a x e d m e n e f 七 o r i n t : f f s a c y 4 1 7 4 2 w a s w h e n p 1 a i n o r d e r e n t e r e d 17 o n s e r e s p o f t h e r c o p o f - - I me a n , a y me a c o p y a n d e ma i 1 e d 18 M a y f l e d o n m e n t I h a d f o r s u mm a r y j u d g - - c o a mo c + o n c o my " e " " :: \ s e e + f ’ " - +e t me m e - f a x e d t o d t h a t w a s . . A n 7 t h b u t i t w a s , 1 , b e 1 : e v e m e o n J u ] - y , I em a : 1 e d 七0 d a t e - - a n d 21 c 1 4 1 7 t h 0 A 2 . d a y - - J u l y , t h a t e x a c t d o u b l e c h e c k +e t me 22 h a d f i l e d 0 1 4 I o n J u l y 1 8 t h , 2 n e x t d a y t h e v e r y t h at t i me 23 - - t h e h e a r i n g d a t e : c u t e d a s u b s t a n e w t r i a l , f o r 24 七h : s m o t o n - - b e e n s e t f o r M a y t h a t h a d m e n t f o r s u nuna r y j u d g o n my mo t i o n 25 J ENN I F ER M T C S R . F E S , 7 1 £o r t o d a y a n d s u b s c : t u c e d c h i Ls , m y m o t i o n £ o r n e w c r / a 1 , a e ’ 2 t he h e a r i n g a t t o d a y s he a r : n g o n t h a t . ’ 3 T HE C OUR T : We l l , t h e r e s a n o t i c e o £ s e t t / n g i n 2 3 r d 1 4 w h : c h o n J u l y 2 0 4 h e r e £ o r a s u mm a r y j u d gm e n t s e t , , £ o r a mo t i o n f o r s - y t h at o r : g i n a 1 1y s e t 5 w a s - - w a s 6 u d g m e n t o r s o m e t h i n g M r . Mo c k ? j , J u l y 1 7 t h I f o u n d MR MOCK : Y e s s i r . T he n o n 7 . , s : g n e d a n o r d e r . So n o h a d a l r e a d y 8 o u t t h a t o n A p r i l 2 9 t h y o u h I f : 1 e d J u l 1 8 t o n a n o r d e r s o o n y g o o d , i s 9 s u mm a r y j u d gm e n t t o s e c t h a t . a n d u s e d t h i s s e t t : n g i o n £ o r n e w c r + a 1 10 m y m o t ’ ’ o u d o n t e t S e e I d o n t k n o w w h y y g T&E C OUR T : , 11 ’ : c d o e s n t s : g n : t i n A p r i l , w h y o r d e r w h e n I o f t h a t 12 a c o p y ’ t i l Ms . G a 1: n d o t n o c j ge u n d : d n - c e t : 1 - - y o u c 13 c o m e A o y o u h t ? s o m e t h i n g r : g y o u , 14 s e n t ’ i c e . 工 d m e n o t he c l e r k d i d n t s e n MR . M O C K : T 15 o r a n y t h : n g • r c o o r d : n a t o r o t n o n o t i c e f r o m y o u 16 g ’ t h e m c o o r d i n a t o r d o e s n t s e n d T HE COURT : My 17 a l l y Sh e g e n e r ’ e c l e r k i c o f f . s i t t o t h e o u t n go e s 18 I m e a , . ’ t h e m m e a n t h a t s o u c o n c e w e s : g n . I , a + + t h a t s t u f f 19 s e n d s ’ ’ o u d : d n t e t s o I d o n t k n o w w h y y g w o u l d h a p p e n i 20 w h a t n o r m a l l y ’ ’ h a e n e d . I k n e w I d o £ i c . I d i dn t k n o w w h a t p p 2 1 a c o p y 1 1 o u r - - y o u k n o w , r e a d i n a y o r d e r a £ c e r g n e d a n 22 f : n a 1 ]- y s : g ’ k n o w w h a t ’ d I d i d n 七 n t t o m e a n h a d s e s u b m : s s i o n s a l l 1 t he y 23 t o d a y w a s s e t h e r e u n t + + I s a w t h i s t o 七h e c a s e 24 h a p p e n e d ’ n c k n o w . I d o 25 a g a i n , s o J E NN I F E R M . F E ST , C S R ’ 1 MR . MOCK : We l l , I b e l i e v e t h a t s a 1 ] - t h e 2 t e s t : mo n y I n e e d t o g i v e o n t h a t . 3 T HE C O I JR T : O k a y . w i t n e s s Y o u r H o n o r 4 MR . M OC K : I p a s s t h e , . t c o r e s p o n d M s . 5 T HE C OUR T : O k a y . Y o u w a n , 6 G a JL i n d o ? ’ ’ d 上上k e c o r e s p o n d . I d o n c 7 MS . G˘ I N DO : I ’ ’ n ’ I k n o w h e s u n de r o a t h , b u t I d : d c y - - 8 t h i n k i t s n e c e s s a r h i m u r H o n o r . i o n Y o 9 w a n t c o q u e s t , : o n h : m ? T HE COURT : D o y o u w a n t t o q u e s t 10 MS ˘ I NDO : N o . 11 . G COURT : O h o k a y A ] 1 r i g h t . T HE - . , 12 o t i o n f o r n e w MOC K : T h e n e x t t h : n g , m y m 13 MR . a 1 ] Gr o u n d O n e r h a s t w o r o u n d s . F : r s t o £ . , H o n o g 14 t r i a ll , Y o u r , o n J a n u a r y B t h , 2 0 1 4 . f o r a h e a r i n g i La c k o £ j u r 1 s d i c t i o n 15 s . ’ w a s n e r v e d . My ’ e s t i m o n . My c l i e n t t s 16 I v e g i v e n m y t y h e r c a u s e n u m b e r . I h a d w a s + n a n o t h o u h t 17 a p p e a r a n c e , I t g , a n e w c a u s e n u m b e r o r a t o r e p r e s e n t h e r o n n e v e r b e e n h i r e d 18 ’ d w h e n e v e r I f o u n d o u c d o n c b e l i e v e - - a n 19 n e w l aw s u i t , s o I h a d m a r k e d o u c t h e o ll d b e e n - - t h a t t h e c l e r k 20 t h a t i c h a d n u m b e r I i n u n e d i a t e 1 y i c a n e w c a u s e , n u mb e r v e n 21 c a u s e , g : C o u r t o n J a n u a r y Bt h s c a c 3 - n g t h a t , w e l l , s h e o b j e c t e d t o t h e 22 ’ ’ s o o u d o n t h a v e j ur s di - c t i Lo n c o h a v e a 23 ha d n t b e e n s e r v e d , y H o n o r So my Gr o u n d On e j. s t h a t t h e o n t h a t Y o u r . 24 he a r i n g y e t , 25 Co u r t o n J a n u a r y 8 t h l a c k e d j ur i s dc t on . J ENN I F E R M . F E ST , C S R L J CA U S E N o . A 8 3 16 GU Y R O B B CO W E N § I N T H E D I ST R JC T C O U R T O F VS § B U RN ET C O U N T ; T EX A S T SH A R ON L E E H A N SO N § 3 3 R D J U D I C I A L D I ST R I C OR D E R w as c alled fo r d ism issal h ea ri n g On Ju n e 24 , 2 0 1 3, t he ab ov e en t it led an d n u m b er ed cau se pu r s u a n t t o R u l e 16 5 a , Tex a s R u l es o f C iv il P r o c e d u r e s . A ppear a n ce : . Def i Res ( ) did n o t ap p ear ( ) ap peared i ) by at to r n ey ( ) di d n ot ap p ear ( ) ap p ear ed ( ) by at t o r n ey ) did n ot ap p ear ( ) a p p ea red ( ) by atto rn ey ( O R D E R D ITSM I SSI N G Go o d c a u s e f o r m ain t ain in g c a se o n d o ck et n o t h av i n g b een sh o w n , I T I S O R D E RE D s a i d c a se i s h e r e b y D I S M I S S E D fo r w an t o f p ro secu t io n , w it h co u r t c o st s t a x ed a g a i n st ) Pl a i n t i f f / Pe t i t i o n er ( ) Def en d an t / Re s p o n d en t ( ) P a r ty i n cu r r i n g s a m e ( ) o t h er SI G N E D on Ju ne 24 , 2 0 1 3 . ) ORD ER M AI N T A I N I N G O N D O CK ET Go o d cau se fo r m ain tain in g case o n d o ck et h av in g b een sh ow n , T I S O R D E RE D t h at sa id ca s e is t o r e m a i n o n t h e d o c k e t o f t h is C o u r t , s u bj e c t t o th e follow in g p r e - t r ia l o rd er : 1 . Pa r t i e s an d co u n s el ar e O R D E R E D t o a p p ea r b ef o r e fo r al t er n a t e d is p u t e r e s o l u t io n th r o u gh a r b it r at io n an d to co m p ly w ith al l i n st r u ct i o n s a n d d ir e c t iv e s o f s a id a r b it r at o r . 2 . A F in a l t D a l s et f o r t h e d ay o f . , 20 . , at m . 3 . A p r e t r i al - co n fe ren ce w ith t h e C o u r t m ay b e h el d if re q u es te d , in w r it in g b y an y p ar ty at least 14 da y s pD or to t r i al d at e F a i l u r e t o c o m p l y w it h t h is p r e t r i a l o r d e r m a y , a . - t t he d is c r e t i o n of th e C o u r t , s u b j e c t t h e d e f a u ltin g p m w t o s an ct io n s a s p r o v id ed u n d e r th e T ex as R u l es of C iv it Pr o ced u r e . SI G N E D on on J un e 24 , 2 0 1 3 . Dan H . M ills , P r e s idin g J u d g e IL E D * l JU W 4 2013 E B l了 姓 ン 1 - C U SE N o . A 8a. 5 GU Y R O B B C O W E N § I N T H E D I ST R I C T C O U R T O P B U RN ET CO - , - VS § § 33RD J U D I C刀 山 D I ST R I CT SH A R O N L E E H A N SO N N O H C E- _ o c KE F r t o ET ex as Ru l e 16 5 a , Tex as R u l es o f Pu r s u an t t o R u l e 6 , R u l es of j u d i c i a 1 A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Su p r e m e C o u , , on t h e D i s m i ss a l Ju d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t M s ’d c ase h as b een se t C iv tl Pr o c ed u r e an d l o c al r u l es of th e 33 , t Bu m et C ou n ty Tex as, a t 0 13 c o m m e n c in g a t 8 : 3 0 A M in t h e N o r t h C ou r th o u se A n n ex , , Dock e t fo r Ju n e 2 4 , 2 se i s sh o w n fo r it t o w an t o f p r o secu t io n u n l ess g o o d c au w h i c h t im e t h e C o u r t i n t e n d s t o d i s m i s s s u c h c a s e f o r be m ain t ain ed o n th e d o ck et . E T U N L E SS lea st sev en (7) day s T H I S C A SE W I L L N O T B E M A I N T A I N E D O N T H E D O C K , a t set tin g ou t s p ec i li c facts it t en m otion is ti l ed w ith th e D ist ric t C ler k th e d i s m i s s al h e ar i n g pr i o r t o a w r , o e ac h e d o ck et i t h a c o p y o f su c h m o t i o n b e i n g f u r n i s h e d t sh o w i n g g o o d c au s e f o r m ai n t ain i n g t h e c ase o n t h w , all t im el y f il ed M o tio n s to M ain t ain , o n O r al h ear in g s w ill b e co n d u c t ed o n p ar t y - o p p o sin g c o u n sel o r p r o s e . Y T H E C OU RT t h e d a t e an d t im e se t o u t ab o v e , N O M O T I O N T O M A I N T A I N W I L L B E C O N SI D E R E D B W IT H O L T A N O R A L H E A R I N G . i li en c e sh all n o t b e c o n s i d er ed go od c au se u n l ess it ap p ear s th at d u e d g A tac k of ser vi ce o n an y p ar t y ’ " be . X o f an y p ar t y seek i n g t o h av e t h e c a se m a:n t ain e : : , ar t y h a . . . ’ " d o n th e d o ck et of t h i s C ou r t t o d et er m in e t h ed . . e st at u s o f an y su c Fu r t h . ’ " tio . ’ " i . ’ " " , it s h al l b e t h e d u t y h rm atio n in an y M o t io n t o M ain t ain o n t M s d o ck et . ba n k r u p t c y p r o c eed i n g s an d i n c lu d e su c h in fo he C ou rt m ay r efer it to al t er nat i ve d is p u t e In t h e ev e n t t h e c a s e i s m ai n t a in e d o n t h e d o ck et , t 15 3 T ex as c iv il P r acti ce an d R em ed ies C o d e Al t er nat ed D i s p u t e r es o l u t i o n p r o c ed u r e p u r su an t t o C h ap t er , , r t an d t ax ed as c o u r t Re s o l u ti o n Pr o c ed u r es . F e e s f o r t h e a l t e r n a t i v e d i s p u t e r e s o 0u t i o n s h a l l b e s e t b y t h e C o u t e r e s o l u t i o n , t he c a s e m ay b e c al l e d c o st s . If m ai n t ain ed o n t h e d o c k et b u t n o t r ef er r ed t o an a.t em a t i v e d is p u ll o w i n g t h e c al l o f t h e d i sm i ssal d o c k e t , o r s e t o r t r ial at a l at er d a t e, ep e n d in g o n t h el d fo r tr i al i m m ed i a t el y f o f o r c all t o t r i a l i m m e d i a t el y f o l l o w in g c i rc u m st an c e s . T hi s n o t i c e sh al l b e c o n si d er ed a N o t i c e o f T D al Se t t i n g th e d i sm i ssal h ear in g . If ma n t a n e d on t h e d o c k et an d s et fo r t ri al at a lat er d ate , t he c ase m ay b e c o n t i n u e d t h e r e af t er o n l y f o r e t er m i n e d b y t h e C o u r t v ah d a n d c o m p e l h n g r e a s o n s t o b e d . T H E D I SM I SSA L D O C K ET EX C EPT F O R I N G S W I L L B E M A D E FO R T H I S C A SE P R I O R T O , N O S˘ E NT R Y O F A N A G R E E D F I N A L J U D G M E N = . SI G N ED : M a y 16 , 2 0 13 . C as i e W al k er , D is t r i c t C l e r k 170 1 E a s t P o lk S t r e e t Su i t e 9 0 , Bu m et , T B 目 Th c fo r e g o i n g N o t i c e w a s m ai l e d t o th e p ar t y / p ar d e s l is t e d b el o w by u s . M al l o n M a y 16 , 20 13 , CO PI ES T O : M A R IE E G A L IN D O 310 w W A L L ST R E ET S U IT E 4 11 M ID L A N D T X 7 970 2 RICH A RD D M O C K . 400 s M A I N BU R N ET T X 786 11 Case F il e