ACCEPTED
01-15-00247-CV
FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
3/19/2015 1:44:34 PM
01-15-00247-CV CHRISTOPHER PRINE
CLERK
Motion to Stay – Petition for Permission to Appeal
IN THE
FILED IN
1st COURT OF APPEALS
{_______} COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS
3/19/2015 1:44:34 PM
at Houston Texas CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Clerk
AMELIA COLVIN
Appellant,
v.
B. SPENCER & Associates, P.C.
D/B/A SPENCER & ASSOCIATES
P.C. N/IDA THE SPENCER LAW FIRM
Appellee.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Appealed from the 239TH DISTRICT Court of
BRAZORIA COUNTY, Texas
________________________________________________________________
APPELLANTS MOTION TO STAY TRIAL-COURT PROCEEDINGS
Appellant Amelia Colvin asks the Court to stay the trial-court proceedings pending the
resolution of the petition for permission to appeal and the appeal of the interlocutory order,
Special appearance under Rule 102.a and Rule 90.a Motion to Dismiss.,
A. INTRODUCTION
1. Appellant is Amelia Colvin appellee is Spencer Law Firm, Bonnie Spencer and
Associates, P.C. N/IDA THE SPENCER LAW FIRM
2. On March 5, 2015 the 239 District Court of Brazoria County denied Appellants
motion to dismiss under Rule 90.a TCPRC. The trial court not rule on Special
Appearance in Cause Number 74756-CV B. SPENCER & Associates, P.C. That is the
subject of this proceeding. In the order, the trial court granted permission to appeal the
interlocutory order. A copy of the order is attached.
3. Appellant files her petition for permission to appeal concurrently with this motion to
stay the trial-court proceedings. The petition is attached.
There are issues raised in this Appeal. The trial court did not rule on Appellants Special
Appearance. Subsequent to the Appellants filing of the Special Appearance and motion to
dismiss Appellant obtained the trial court record for the first time. The special appearance
should have been amended to state that the trial court lacks jurisdiction over the appellant
because of lack of service under rule 106-108 and under the Hague convention. Appellant did
not have time to amend her pleadings because she was not served the Appellees pleadings
and motion for Default judgment was on file when she was noticed that the judgment hearing
was proceeding. She was not properly served Appellees motion for default judgment and in a
rush to respond before judgment was entered Appelant filed a hurried due order pleadings,
Rule 102.a Rule 90.a motion to seal records because Appellee was filing medical records and
other documents in the record that were unredacted. Thereafter Appellant began to review the
trial court record which is void of citations issued compliant with the rules of service.
Without compliance the trial court lacks jurisdiction to make further rulings or orders for
discovery in the case. For this reason, Appellant pleads her motion for stay is granted.
B. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES
6. The Court has the authority to grant a stay of the trial-court proceedings pending the
resolution of a petition for permission to appeal and the appeal of an interlocutory order
when the trial court has issued a written order granting permission to appeal the interlocutory
order and {a party requests/the parties agree to} a stay. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
§51.014(e).
7. The Court should grant a stay of the trial-court proceedings because court lacks
subject matter and in personam jurisdiction over these proceedings. If Appellate court finds in
favor of the Appellant this case will be dismissed with prejudice. There are also issues of
noncompliance with rule 106-108 and The Hague convention that should this court find in favor
of Appellant the statute of limitations has tolled. Should this court find in favor of Appellant the
trial court has not made a ruling of findings of fact and conclusions of law which are a
requirement under Rule 90.a. these will reveal issues with the Appellees case including
resjudicata and no evidence of damages which may adversely affect Appellant rights and
defenses. Furthermore, it appears that should the Court grant this motion, that the trial court may
lack jurisdiction over this Appellant, the statute of limitations has tolled AND the issues before
this and the trial court appear to have been previously decided in favor of appellant and are issue
precludes res judicata, collateral attack. Should the trial court proceed to make further rulings
while the issues of Statue of limitations and Special appearance have not been ruled on, the
Appellees may obtain rulings contrary to Appellate law and this court’s decisions.
C. CONCLUSION
8. WHEREFORE, Appellant hereby requests this case be ruled on by submission, and
moves that at the conclusion thereof, the Court grants Appellant permission for Appellant
Amelia Colvin to file an interlocutory appeal. Appellant Amelia Colvin further requests that
the Court issue a stay of the proceedings pending the disposition of the interlocutory
appeal.
D. PRAYER
9. For these reasons, Appellant prays the Court to grant this motion and stay the trial-court
proceedings.
_______/s______________
Amelia Colvin PRO SE
102 REDCLIFF GARDENS FLAT 8
LONDON ENGLAND SW10 9HH
Tel. USA 203 992 7334
Amelia Colvin v. B. Spencer & Associates, P.C. D/B/A Spencer & Associates, P.C. N/K/A the Spencer Law Firm
Combined Opinion