FILED
15-0634
8/24/2015 12:14:10 PM
tex-6619742
SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK
NO. 15-0634
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
RICHARD A. RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Respondent.
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE A PETITION FOR REVIEW
Respondent, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMC”) files this Response to
the Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review and First
Supplemental Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review and
would respectfully show this Court as follows:
1. This is an appeal in a mortgage-related case that has been pending for
nearly fifteen years. Petitioner Richard A. Rodriguez initially filed suit in
September 2000 seeking to delay a foreclosure of certain real property (the
“Property”). After years of delay, the case was tried to a jury in February 2014.
Based on the trial court’s pre-trial rulings and the verdict of the jury, on March 24,
RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION Page 1
2014, a judgment was entered in favor of JPMC for $441,027.10, attorney’s fees,
costs and interest and ordering that the Property be foreclosed. Rodriguez filed a
motion for new trial and then filed a notice of appeal on May 8, 2014.
2. On August 18, 2014, the trial court required Rodriguez to post a
$12,000 bond or cash deposit to suspend enforcement of the judgment, including
the foreclosure. JPMC then attempted to move forward with the foreclosure in
September 2014. Despite the fact that he had not posted the required bond, on
August 29, 2014 Rodriguez filed an emergency motion in the court of appeals
seeking to stay the foreclosure. JPMC voluntarily postponed the September
foreclosure sale to allow the court of appeals to consider the issue on a non-
emergency basis.
3. Rodriguez’s brief was originally due on August 29, 2014. This
deadline was extended until December 2, 2014 after Rodriguez sought three
extensions due to the personal circumstances of his counsel.
4. On June 10, 2015, JPMC advised the court of appeals of its intention
to move forward with the foreclosure on July 7, 2015. The court of appeals then
issued its opinion on June 17, 2015 affirming the trial court’s judgment. Rodriguez
filed a motion for rehearing en banc. On July 6, 2015, Rodriguez filed an
additional emergency motion seeking to prevent the July 7, 2015 foreclosure sale
RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION Page 2
from proceeding. The court of appeals granted the motion reasoning that
“[b]ecause Rodriguez has filed a motion for rehearing en banc and because
mandate has not yet issued, Rodriguez’s emergency motion is granted only to the
extent he requests that the sale of property that is the subject of this appeal be
stayed until mandate issues pertaining to this Court’s opinion issued on June 17,
2015.” The motion for rehearing was denied on July 10, 2015.
5. Because the mandate has not yet issued (and will not issue if a petition
for review is filed), JPMC is currently prohibited from moving forward with
foreclosure, despite the fact that Rodriguez has never posted the required security
as set by the district court.
6. Ordinarily, JPMC is agreeable to extensions of time for briefing
deadlines. However, in this instance, JPMC has been prevented from foreclosing
on the Property since 2000. Given the court of appeals’ order, JPMC will be
further delayed until this Court considers the petition for review Rodriguez is
indicating he intends to file. The issues have previously been fully briefed and
have again been briefed in a motion for en banc rehearing. Given the history of
briefing, the 45 day period from the denial of the motion for rehearing should have
been more than sufficient to allow Rodriguez to prepare his petition for review.
Accordingly, JPMC would oppose any extension of Rodriguez’s deadline to file a
RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION Page 3
petition for review. Alternatively, if the Court is inclined to grant an extension,
JPMC requests that the extension be brief and that Rodriguez be admonished that
no further extensions will be granted.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Respondent JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A. respectfully requests that Rodriguez’s Motion for Extension of Time to
File a Petition for Review be denied, or alternatively that any extension be brief
and that Petitioner be admonished that no further extensions will be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Marcie L. Schout
MARCIE L. SCHOUT
Texas Bar No. 24027960
WM. LANCE LEWIS
Texas Bar No. 12314560
GREGORY M. SUDBURY
Texas Bar No. 24033367
QUILLING, SELANDER, LOWNDS,
WINSLETT & MOSER, P.C.
2001 Bryan Street, Suite 1800
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 871-2100 (Telephone)
(214) 871-2111 (Facsimile)
mschout@qslwm.com
llewis@qslwm.com
gsudbury@qslwm.com
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT,
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION Page 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on the 24th day of August, 2015, a true
and correct copy of the foregoing document was served via electronic service and
via facsimile upon the following parties:
R. Robert Willmann, Jr.
PO Box 460164
San Antonio, Texas 78246
Facsimile: (361) 552-4305
/s/ Marcie L. Schout
Marcie L. Schout
4813-7927-4023, v. 1
RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION Page 5