NO. 01-15-00267-CV
FILED IN
1st COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS
FOR THE 1ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS
3/25/2015 12:01:47 PM
AT HOUSTON CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk
IN RE SOLID SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC., d/b/a EDIBLE SOFTWARE
Original Proceeding from the 215th Judicial District
Of Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2013-74668
RELATOR SOLID SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS INC. d/b/a EDIBLE
SOFTWARE’ S APPENDIX E-F TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS
Gregg M. Rosenberg
Texas State Bar No. 17268750
Tracey D. Lewis
Texas State Bar No. 24090230
ROSENBERG SPROVACH
3518 Travis, Suite 200
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone (713) 960-8300
Facsimile (713) 621-6670
gregg@rosenberglaw.com
Attorneys for Relators
TABE
2/26/2015 4:50:26 PM
Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 4304972
By: GAYLE FULLER
Filed: 2/26/2015 4:50:26 PM
CAUSE NO. 2013c74668
ANDREA FARMER § IN TBE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § BARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
HENRI MORRIS and SOLID SOFTWARE §
SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a EDIBLE § ~
SOFTWARE § 215TH JUDICI~~ISTRICT
~a
Defendant.
0~
DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE T " FENDANTS' MOTION
'~
TO DISMISS OR ALTERNA
TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMM JUDGMENT
ffJ
COMES NOW, Hel11i Mortis (''Defendant ~~) and Solid Software Solutions, Inc.
d/b/a Edible Software {"Defendant Edible Softw~~ collectively ("Defendants"), h1 the above-
styled and numbered cause of action, filin~~eply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss or, alternatively, ~~ for SI!111maty Judgment on Plaintiff's claims of
ocr
assault and invasion of privacy on t~sis of Defendants' affinnative defense oflimitations and
0
failure to adhere. to the TCHRA~11inistrativt: requirements.
Ul!;di~ I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff's respo~ does not question any ofthe facts applicable to Defendants' bases for
;!£,@" .
.its Motion to. Di~or altematively its Motion for Summary Judgment. Instead, Plaintiffs
g
factual and ~sertions urge this Court lo iguore the filet that Plaintiff did not plead a claim
of sexual assault because the requisite elements are not present based on the facts of tlus case and
Plaintiff's own testimony. Plah1tiff attempts to characterize Defendants' Motion as "cynical"
and "delusional" however, Defendants have taken the cle