ACCEPTED
03-13-00318-CV
4431261
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
3/10/2015 8:37:20 AM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
NO. 03-13-00318-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN
3rd COURT OF APPEALS
THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS
AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/10/2015 8:37:20 AM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
Clerk
JUAN A. MARTIN-DE-NICOLAS
APPELLANT
VS.
REX JONES
APPELLEE
APPEALED FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2
OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. C-1-CV-12-008738
OPPOSITION TO APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR EN BANC
RECONSIDERATION
RONALD L. CLARK
TBN: 04298300
1701 Directors Boulevard, Suite 920
Austin, Texas 78744
(512) 445-1592 - Telephone
(210) 394-1635 - Facsimile
ronald.clark@farmersinsurance.com
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
ORAL ARGUMENT IS NOT REQUESTED
IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Appellant – Plaintiff Below: Counsel
Juan A. Martin-de-Nicolas Juan A. Martin-de-Nicolas
TBN: Pro Se
5604 Woodview Avenue
Austin, Texas 78756
Tel: (512) 565-1498
Fax: None
Appellee – Defendant Below: Counsel
Rex Jones Ronald L. Clark
CLARK, PRICE & TREVINO
TBN: 04298300
1701 Directors Boulevard, Suite 920
Austin, Texas 78744
Tel: (512) 445-1592
Fax: (210) 394-1635
ronald.clark@farmersinsurance.com
1
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
Appellant has again filed another motion for reconsideration; this time en
banc. Appellant served his motion for en banc reconsideration on or about
February 17, 2015. Appellant still provides nothing new to change the Court’s
prior opinion in this case.
Initially, Appellant sought rehearing from the Court’s August 28, 2014
opinion. Appellant’s motion for rehearing was denied on January 26, 2015.
In the Court’s August 28, 2014 opinion, it found no reversible error.
Plaintiff’s motion for en banc consideration does not bring forward any new
matters or facts that could in any way be a basis for a rehearing. Appellant merely
rehashes what he brought forward in his first appellate brief.
Pointing out again, Appellant was not denied any due process rights and the
county court did not commit error. The Court properly found that appellant was
not denied notice of any hearings. Appellant could not show any harm to him from
the actions of the trial court below. Appellant tried his case in JP court and lost.
He did not timely file his appeal to the county court at law, which is undisputed.
Nothing done thereafter by the county court or appellee changed appellant’s failure
to timely meet his timetables to perfect his appeal to county court. Appellant failed
to timely file his attempt to perfect his appeal. There is no document in the record
that indicated appellant’s intention to appeal the ruling of the justice court was ever
2
filed within the period for perfecting appeals. Appellant’s motion for new trial and
JNOV do not demonstrate a desire to appeal. Further, he did not file a notice of
appeal within the time for filing the appeal bond as set out in the rules and case law
cited by appellant. Appellant filed his bond 13 days late. There was nothing done
by appellee or the county court that caused or contributed to appellant’s failure to
comply with the filing deadlines or to cure that failure. Exhibit A is attached as
timeline for the Court.
Through exhaustive review, this Honorable Court of Appeals found no
reversible error was committed by the trial court below nor were the actions of the
appellee. Therefore, appellant’s motion for rehearing should be in all things
denied.
3
Respectfully submitted,
CLARK, PRICE & TREVINO
BY:
Ronald L. Clark
TBN: 04298300
1701 Directors Boulevard, Suite 920
Austin, Texas 78744
Telephone: (512) 445-1580
Facsimile: (512) 383-0503
ronald.clark@farmersinsurance.com
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this document was produced on a computer using Microsoft
Word 2003 and contains 845 words, as defined by the computer software's word-
count function, excluding the sections of the documents listed in Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure 9.4 (i) (1)
_____________________________
Ronald L. Clark
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the _10th_ day of March, 2015, a true and correct copy of
the foregoing instrument was forwarded via certified mail, return receipt requested,
and/or by hand delivery and/or by fax transmission and/or by regular mail, and/or
by electronic service opposing counsel and to all other counsel of record of first-
class regular mail.
Juan A. Martin-de-Nicolas
5604 Woodview Avenue
Austin, Texas 78756
____________________________________
RONALD L. CLARK
5
EXHIBIT A
Step Action - Form TRCP Deadline Due Done
Rule
1 Trial court renders and signs 556 07/11/12
judgment by the
court
2 Appellant files motion for 569 Step 1 within 07/18/12 07/18/12
JNOV and MNT 5 days of [excluding
rendition of Sat. and
judgment Sun. per
Rule 4]
3 Motion for JNOV and MNT 567 Step 1 within 07/23/12 07/23/121
is overruled by operation of 10 days after [including
law – Justice Court without rendition of Sat. and
power to sign order on MNT judgment Sun. per
Rule 4]
4 Appellant perfects de novo 571 Step 1 within 07/31/12 08/15/12
appeal to county court. and 20 days of a
Under the holding in Searcy 573 judgment [10
-– if a party files a motion days + 10
for new trial in Justice days]
Court, there is a maximum
of 20 days to file an appeal
bond
5 Appellant perfects de novo 571 Step 3 within 08/02/12 08/15/12
appeal to county court. and 10 days of a MNT was
573 judgment or overruled
order by
overruling operation
MNT of law on
7-23-12
1
The ten day period expired on July 21, 2012. However, that day was a Saturday and so any
deadline is extended to the next regular weekday, or July 23, 2012.
6