HLED IN
1STCOURT OF APPEAL
HOUSTON, TEXAS
In The
Court of Appeals FEB 2g 2015
For The CHRISTQPHy=^PR|NE
CLERK.
First District of Texas
NO. 01-015-00063-CV
Patrick Cox, Appellant(s)
Cara Cox, Appellee(s)
On Appeal from the 245th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2013-21966
Appellant's Response to Appellee's Response to Appellant's
Motion to Compel Mediation Participation by Appellee
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
Comes now, Appellant Patrick Cox, and files this Appellant's
Response to Appellee's Response to Appellant's Motion to Compel
Mediation Participation by Appellee. Appellant respectfully submits to the
Court that the following information provides reasonable support for
Appellant's request for relief and sanctions for Appellee's non cooperation
in setting mediation.
SUMMARY
Appellee's own counsel in their reply provides the evidence to
disregard Appellee's claims that Appellant rushed to conclusion and rushed
to seek sanctions. By including the verbiage from Appellant's email asking
Appellee for suggested alternative mediators, Appellee's counsel
establishes that Appellant was seeking mediation while Appellee was
apparently trying to avoid it or at least delay it. Appellant's email to
Appellee's counsel as supplied in Appellee's response clearly shows that
Appellant offered to agree on another mediator if the dates offered by the
previously agreed mediator were unacceptable. Additional support for
Appellant's requests of this Court include: (1) Appellee has twice asked
Appellee for suggested alternate mediators so that the Court's mediation
time frame could be met; (2) Appellant received no response to those
requests; (3) Appellee has time for preparation of, submission of, and
scheduling of oral arguments in a trial court motion in this causer during the
same period in which Appellee is unavailable to conduct mediation
according to the emails from Appellee's counsel. It seems to Appellant that
the primary focus of both parties should be in resolving this appeal rather
than in seeking superior positions at the trial court level..
ARGUMENTS and FACTS
1. Appellant would ask the Court to note that the copy of the verbiage of
the email exchange contained in Appellee's response to the Motion to
Compel Mediation Participation (motion to compel) includes an invitation for
Appellee to suggest another mediator. Appellant states in the email
supplied by Appellee: "If you prefer another mediator, please advise his/her
name."
2. Appellant never received a response to his suggestion of using
another mediator to resolve the mediation date problem. The only response
ever received was in Appellee's response to Appellant's motion to compel.
The sole response Appellant received, despite reminding Appellee of the
Court's order, was that the mediator's suggested dates were unacceptable
and that the mediation date must be agreeable to both parties.
3. When Appellee finally provided possible dates for the mediation,
Appellant found it interesting that those dates conveniently fall after a trial
court motion in this cause filed by Appellee that was filed after Appellant's
notice of appeal and after this Court's order to mediation.
4. Appellant reminded the Appellee's counsel in email on February 19,
2015 that he was open to selecting another mediator to accomplish the
mediation deadline in this Court's order. To date, Appellee's only response
was contained in the Appellee's reply to Appellant's motion to compel.
5. Since Appellant was ordered by the Court to supply the name of the
mediator by February 19, 2015 and was not given cooperation by Appellee
in either agreeing to dates or selecting another mediator, Appellant was left
with no choice but to seek relief from this Court for the Appellee's refusal to
cooperate and potentially putting Appellant in violation of this Court's order.
6. This Court imposed a reasonable standard time frame in which to
select a mediator and conduct mediation. Appellee's counsel despite being
knowledgeable in these matters was uncooperative in the process.
Because of this non cooperation, Appellant was forced to seek relief from
this Court and to request that this Court sanction Appellee's counsel in this
matter.
7. Appellee filed a motion with the trial court in this cause that was
served on Appellant on February 13, 2015. The motion seeks to enforce
the property division even though Appellant has filed a supersedes bond
with the trial court. Appellant is of the opinion that the mediation process
was being delayed intentionally by Appellee in an effort to strategically
disadvantage Appellant in some manner. The argument that the Appellee's
counsel lacked the time within the time frame ordered by this Court seemed
to be lacking in logic when knowledge of the Appellee's trial court motion
comes into consideration. The argument by Appellee's counsel would seem
to be that Appellee has time to prepare, file and argue a trial court motion
during the time frame of this Court's mediation order but has no time in
which to conduct the mediation ordered by this Court.
SUMMARY
Appellee proposed three options in Appellee's response to
Appellant's motion to compel. Appellant finds it perfectly acceptable to
agree on another mediator if this is acceptable to the Court since Appellant
has previously on two occasions made the same suggestion (option one).
Appellant is also happy to agree to different dates within the time frame of
the Court's order (option two), Appellant finds the third option of an
extension to be undesirable since it has the effect of rewarding Appellee's
efforts to stall the mediation and further reward Appellee by allowing
Appellee's trial court motion to proceed while ignoring this Court's order to
mediation.
Appellant also reaffirms his request for sanctions as requested in
Appellant's original motion to compel since the time and cost required for
the motion to compel and the necessity to involve this Court in obtaining
Appellee's cooperation in the mediation ordered should not be free of
consequence for the Appellee.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Patrick Cox
Pro Se Appellant
Mailing address: 247 Hedwio Rd
Telephone number: 832-495-9416
Fax number: 855-280-1504
e-mail address: divorce_cara@.yahoo.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true copy of the above was served on each attorney of record or party in
accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on February 25, 2015.
email to;
Bobby K. Newman: bknservice(3>lnvlaw.com
Attorney for Appellee
Patrick Cox
Patrick Cox v. Cara Cox
Combined Opinion