ACCEPTED
05-15-00888-CV
05-15-00888-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS
DALLAS, TEXAS
7/22/2015 9:57:39 AM
LISA MATZ
CLERK
No. ______________
____________________________________________________
FILED IN
5th COURT OF APPEALS
DALLAS, TEXAS
In the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District7/22/2015 9:57:39 AM
Dallas, Texas LISA MATZ
____________________________________________________ Clerk
Ann Caldwell Rupe, as Trustee for the Dallas Gordon Rupe, III 1995 Family
Trust v. Lee C. Ritchie, Paula Rupe Dennard and Rupe Investment Corporation
____________________________________________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the 44th District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Case No. DC-06-06944
____________________________________________________
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
____________________________________________________
Amy E. Davis (TSBN 24007083)
CHRISTIANSEN DAVIS LLC
4100 Spring Valley Road, Suite 450
Dallas, TX 75244
(214) 838-3501 (Phone)
(972) 332-2306 (Fax)
ATTORNEYS FOR RELATOR
AMY E. DAVIS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Relator Counsel
Amy E. Davis Amy E. Davis (TSBN 24007083)
CHRISTIANSEN DAVIS LLC
4100 Spring Valley Road, Suite 450
Dallas, TX 75244
(214) 838-3501 (Phone)
(972) 332-2306 (Fax)
Real Parties in Interest Counsel
Ann Caldwell Rupe, as Trustee for Steven E. Aldous (TSBN 00982100)
the Dallas Gordan Rupe, III 1995 FORSHEY PROSTOK, LL P.
Family Trust 500 Crescent Court, Suite 240
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 716-2101
(817) 877-4151 (fax)
Charla G. Aldous (TSBN 04783250)
ALDOUS LAW FIRM
2305 Cedar Springs, Suite 200
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 526-5595
(214) 526-5525 (fax)
Lee C. Ritchie, Paula Rupe Robert B. Gilbreath (TBSN 07904620)
Dennard, Dennis Lutes and Rupe HAWKINS, PARNELL & THACKSTON,
Investment Corporation LLP
Highland Park Place
4514 Cole Avenue, Suite 500
Dallas, Texas 75205
(214) 780-5100
(214) 780-5200 (fax)
ii
Respondent
The Hon. Bonnie Lee Goldstein
44th District Court
600 Commerce Street, 5th Floor
Dallas County, TX 75202
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ............................................................ ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................... v
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 1
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .......................................................................... 2
ISSUES PRESENTED ............................................................................................... 3
STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................... 3
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 5
PRAYER .................................................................................................................... 5
VERIFICATION OF FACTS AND APPENDIX AND RECORD ........................... 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE................................................................................... 8
APPENDIX OF RECORD ......................................................................................... 9
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Hunt v. Bass, 664 S.W.2d 323 (Tex. 1984) ...............................................................2
Kenseth v. Dallas County, 126 S.W.3d 584 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, pet. denied) 2
Mitchell v. Dixon, 168 S.W.2d 654 (Tex. 1994)........................................................2
Terrazas v. Ramirez, 829 S.W.2d 712, 723 (Tex. 1991) ........................................2,3
v
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nature of Underlying Proceeding:
Acting as Trustee for the Dallas Gordan Rupe, III 1995 Family Trust, Ann
Caldwell Rupe (“Plaintiff”) brought the underlying action against Lee C. Ritchie,
Paula Rupe Dennard, Dennis Lutes and Rupe Investment Corporation (collectively,
“Defendants”) in July 2006. In 2008 the trial court, Judge Carlos Cortez presiding,
entered judgment on a jury verdict. The judgment has been appealed to this Court
and the Texas Supreme Court. On remand from the Texas Supreme Court, the
case is now pending before this Court.
Prior to entry of judgment, the trial court entered an order granting sanctions
(the “Sanctions Order”) against Relator, who at the time represented Defendants.
(R. Tab. 1). On May 12, 2012, after appeal of the judgment, Plaintiff and
Defendants jointly moved the trial court to vacate the Sanctions Order (the “Joint
Motion to Vacate”) with prejudice. (R. Tab 2.)
The trial court has been unable to rule on the Joint Motion to Vacate due to a
lack of plenary power. It may never have such an opportunity as this Court may
render judgment in the underlying case rather than remand it to the trial court for
further action. In the absence of plenary power, judicial action taken by a trial
court is void. Relator, therefore, respectfully requests this Court mandate the trial
court to rule on the Joint Motion to Vacate, lest her and the parties’ desire that the
Order be vacated go without consideration.
1
Respondent:
The Honorable Bonnie Lee Goldstein, 44th District Court, Dallas, Texas.
Action from Which Relator Seeks Relief:
Relator and the parties have requested that the trial court consider and rule
upon the Joint Motion to Vacate; however, that action has been rendered
impossible by the trial court’s lack of plenary power. Therefore, Relator requests
the Court issue a mandate compelling the trial court to act on the Joint Motion to
Vacate.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus at the request of
Relator because Relator has an interest in the trial court’s consideration of the Joint
Motion to Vacate. See Terrazas v. Ramirez, 829 S.W.2d 712, 723 (Tex. 1991)
(mandamus is available to relator with a justiciable interest in the underlying
controversy); Hunt v. Bass, 664 S.W.2d 323, 324 (Tex. 1984) (same); Mitchell v.
Dixon, 168 S.W.2d 654, 656 (Tex. 1994) (same).
Mandamus is not available to compel an action which has not been
demanded and refused unless the relator has had no reasonable opportunity to
make such a demand. See Terrazas, 829 S.W.2d at 723. This Court has
jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the Respondent because Relator
(like the parties and Respondent) has had no reasonable opportunity to demand that
2
Respondent consider and rule upon the Joint Motion to Vacate given the trial
court’s lack of plenary power. See id. at 723-24.
ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Whether Relator has a justiciable interest in the trial court’s
consideration of the Joint Motion to Vacate.
2. Whether Relator has had no reasonable opportunity to demand that
Respondent consider and rule upon the Joint Motion to Vacate given the trial
court’s lack of plenary power.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Acting as Trustee for the Dallas Gordan Rupe, III 1995 Family Trust, Ann
Caldwell Rupe (“Plaintiff”) brought this minority shareholder action against Lee C.
Ritchie, Paula Rupe Dennard, Dennis Lutes and Rupe Investment Corporation
(collectively, “Defendants”) in July 2006. The case was tried to a jury in
December 2007 and the trial court, Judge Carlos Cortez presiding, entered
judgment on the jury’s verdict in early 2008. As Cause No. 05-08-00615-CV, the
judgment was appealed to this Court and, later, to the Texas Supreme Court as
Cause No. 11-0447, which, in 2014, remanded the case to this Court for further
proceedings consistent with its opinion. The case remains pending before this
Court.
Prior to entry of judgment, Plaintiff filed a Third Motion to Sanctions,
complaining of Relator, who at that time represented Defendants in this matter. On
3
May 22, 2008, the trial court entered the Sanctions Order against Relator. (R. Tab.
1). Relator appealed the Sanctions Order to this Court as Cause No. 05-08-00813-
CV. The Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling despite a lengthy dissenting
opinion by Justice FitzGerald.
On May 12, 2012, after appeal of the final judgment, Plaintiff and
Defendants filed the Joint Motion to Vacate, seeking to vacate the Sanctions Order
with prejudice on the grounds that Plaintiff and her counsel no longer believe
Relator acted with an intent to deceive the trial court. (R. Tab 2.) Plaintiff and her
counsel further disclaimed any contention that Relator acted with an intent to
deceive the trial court. The trial court has been unable to rule on the Joint Motion
to Vacate due to a lack of plenary power although, at hearing on May 8, 2015 held
to discuss the parties’ dilemma, the trial court expressed a desire to grant the
motion should it receive a mandate to do so or should it regain plenary power.
This Court may render judgment in the case rather than remand it to the trial
court for further action, in which case, the trial court will never have plenary power
to consider and rule upon the Joint Motion to Vacate. Absent plenary power,
judicial action taken by a trial court is void. Kenseth v. Dallas County, 126 S.W.3d
584, 599 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, pet. denied). Relator, therefore, respectfully
requests this Court mandate the trial court to rule on the Joint Motion to Vacate,
lest her and the parties’ desire that the Order be vacated go without consideration.
4
ARGUMENT
The parties do not dispute the operative facts. Relator has an interest in
having the Sanctions Order vacated, as the parties seek to do by the Joint Motion to
Vacate. The trial court has lacked plenary power to consider and rule upon the
Joint Motion to Vacate because the underlying case has been on appeal at all times
since it was filed.
In the absence of plenary power, judicial action by the trial court is void.
Kenseth, 126 S.W.3d at 599. Therefore, it has been impossible for Relator to
demand consideration of the Joint Motion to Vacate. This Court may excuse the
general rule that, before a mandate may be issued, the relator must have demanded
and been refused an action, where, like here, the relator has had no reasonable
opportunity to make such a demand. See Terrazas, 829 S.W.2d at 723.
Relator respectfully requests the Court issue a mandate compelling the trial
court to act on the Joint Motion to Vacate. In the alternative, Relator respectfully
requests the Court grant the Joint Motion to Vacate.
PRAYER
For the foregoing reasons, a mandate should be issued compelling
Respondent to consider and rule upon the Joint Motion to Vacate.
5
Respectfully submitted,
Amy E. Davis (TSBN 24007083)
CHRISTIANSEN DAVIS LLC
4100 Spring Valley Road, Suite 450
Dallas, TX 75244
(214) 838-3501 (Phone)
(972) 332-2306 (Fax)
adavis@cdfirm.com
6
VERIFICATION OF FACTS AND APPENDIX AND RECORD
ST ATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF DALLAS §
1. My name is Amy E. Davis. I am over 18 years of age and fully competent to
make this verification. I am licensed to practice law in the State of Texas and I am
a partner in the law firm of Christiansen Davis LLP. I was counsel for Lee C.
Ritchie, Paula Rupe Dennard, Dennis Lutes and Rupe Investment Corporation at
trial of the underlying action, Ann Caldwell Rupe, as Trustee for the Dallas
Gordon Rupe, Ill 1995 Family Trust v. Lee C. Ritchie, Paula Rupe Dennard and
Rupe Investment Corporation, in the 44th District Comt of Dallas County, Texas,
Case No. DC-06-06944 (the "Action"). The facts stated in this Verification are
true and correct, based on my personal knowledge gained from participation in the
Action as counsel of record and as subject to the May 22, 2008 order entered in the
Action.
2. The facts stated in this Petition for Writ of Mandamus about the
history of and proceedings in the Action are true and correct. The citations in this
Petition to the factual record developed in the Action are accurate. All documents
contained in the Appendix hereto are true and correct copies of documents from
the record in the Action.
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN TO before me this 22nd day ofJ_ul , 2015.
[NOTARIAL SEAL]
,uuu,,
~~'.;~~ !:<:~~ BRETT CHRISTIANSEN
f ~(Xt~ Notary Public, State of Texas
\":.\Jli{/~l My Commission Expires
"'~i,:¥.0~~-=-' June 02, 2018
7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned does hereby certify that true and correct copies of Relators’
Petition for Writ of Mandamus were duly served upon:
Counsel for Real Parties in Interest: Respondent:
Steven E. Aldous (TSBN 00982100) The Hon. Bonnie Lee Goldstein
FORSHEY PROSTOK, LL P. 44th District Court
500 Crescent Court, Suite 240 600 Commerce Street, 3rd Floor
Dallas, Texas 75201 Dallas County, TX 75202
(214) 716-2101
(817) 877-4151 (fax)
Charla G. Aldous (TSBN 04783250)
ALDOUS LAW FIRM
2305 Cedar Springs, Suite 200
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 526-5595
(214) 526-5525 (fax)
Robert B. Gilbreath (TBSN
07904620)
HAWKINS, PARNELL &
THACKSTON, LLP
Highland Park Place
4514 Cole Avenue, Suite 500
Dallas, Texas 75205
(214) 780-5100
(214) 780-5200 (fax)
via electronic service on this 22nd day of July, 2015.
AMY E. DAVIS
8
APPENDIX OF RECORD
TAB DESCRIPTION PAGE
1. Order (5/22/08) R. 1 – 5
2. Joint Motion to Vacate (5/12/12) R. 6 – 8
9
, MAY-22-2008 17:21 FROM:Jll'lGE CARLOS CORTEZ 214 653 6646 T0:92147805200
TAB 1
JUDGE CARLOS R. CORTEZ
44th STATE CIVIL DISTRICT COURT
Cause No. 06-06944
Ann Caldwell Rupe
v.
Lee C. Ritchie, ct al
ORDER
Counsel:
l run in receipt of Plaintiff's May 21, 2008 letter and proposed Order and also
Defendants' letter dated May 15, 2008 (in which Mr. Gilbreath cited lo cases which were both
designated for publication and not designated/or publication).
111is Court believes that th.e Court's contempt power, allowing the court to punish
conduct, is "essential to fudicial independence and authority." See Ex parte Pryor, 800 S. W.2d
511, 512, 34 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 203 (Tex. 1990).
Texas has long held that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, and should
conform, as much as practicable, to criminal proceedings. Ex parte Sanchez, 703 S.W.2d 955,
957, 29 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 215 (Tex. 1986); In re Pooley, 129 S.W.3d 277, 278 (Tex. App. -
Corpus Chri.sti 2004, orig proceeding).
George L. Allen, Sr. Courts Building
600 Commerce Street, 5th Floor
Dallas, Texas 75202
214.653,7427 tel
R. 1
MAY -22-2008 17 : 22 FROM : Jl IQGE CARLOS CORTEZ 214 653 6646 T0:92147805200
Characterization of the contempt is based upon the nature and purpose of the penalty
imposed, and may be civil, c.riminal or both. Ex parte Johns. 807 S.W.2d 768, 770-771 (Tex.
App. -Dallas l 991, orig. proceeding).
Contempt can be criminal, with unconditional punishment for past conduct already
performed, allowing no immediate means of release; or civil (coercive) allowing immediate
release by the contemnor simply conforming current conduct consistent with the Court's order.
W.,, at 770-771; Exparte Werblud, 526 S.W.2d 545-546, 19 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 286 (Tex. 1976);
In both civil and criminal contempt orders .• the penalty imposed by the Court may be a
fine, imprisonment, or bo1h. Ex parte Johns, 807 S.W.2d 768, 770-771.
A criminal contempt order is a punitive and an un.conditional assertion of the court's
power to punish for acts that insult "the court's dignity and authority". Ex parte Johns, 807
S.W.2d 768, 770-771.
There arc two types of criminal contempt, direct, with acts occurring in the cot1rt's
presence; and constructive (indirect) with the contemptuous acts occurring outside the court's
presence. In re Johnson, 996 S. W.2d 430, 433 (Tex. App. - Beall\nont 1999, no pet).
The Texas Supreme Court has for decades held that a court should not try cases of
criminal constructive contempt if the alleged contemnor is absent, but should isst1e capias or writ
of attachment to bring the alleged contemnor before tl1e Court. Ex parte Johnson. 654 S.W.2d
422, 26 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 484 (Tex. 1983) citing Ex parte Gordon, 584 S.W.2d 686, 688, 22 Tex.
Sup. Ct. J. 295 (Tex. 1979).
Moreover, Professor Moss has stated in his opinion to tl1e Court that "deceitfel conduct
by a lawyer is regarded by the Bar as an offense that a 'self-regulating profession must
vigorously endeavor to prevent through punishment of the offender"'. Professor Moss noted
George L. Allen, Sr. Courts Building
600 Commerce Stree~ 5th Floor
Dallas, Texas 75202
214.653.7427 tel
R.2
. MAY -22-2008 1 7 : 22 FROM : Jl lf)GE CARLOS CORTEZ 214 653 6646 T0:92147805200
Texas Judidal Advisory Opinion No. 45 (1979), "the knowing presentation offalse i11formation
to a court ... is unprofessional conduct" requiring a judge "to Initiate appropriate disciplinary
action".
It is absurd, as Mr. Gilbreath's suggests that somehow because the Coilrt did not
irpmcdiately make a. finding of contempt each and every time Ms. Davis made the multiple
misleading statements and misrepresentations (which would have led this Court to have
committed possible reversible error and provide grounds for a mistrial) that "the Court's
inherent power to punish for direct contempt cannot serve as the basis for any punishment
assessed against Ms. Davis. Mr. Gilbreath's reliance on Caldwell v. Wright. Robinson,
McCammon, Osth.bner & Tatum, P.C., 807 S.W.2d 413, 415 (Tex. App. - Houston (1"· Dist.]
1991, orig. proceeding) in that rega!'d is misplaced as the facts and law of that case is not si.m.iiar
to the issue before this Court. Moreover, Mr. Gilbreath cite to Ex Parte Knable, 818 S.W.2d 811,
812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) is also distinguishable to the case at issue becatise it only holds that
the judge's power to punish the contemptuous conduct dissipates "without first affording the
contemnor notice and an opportunity to be heard". Id. at 813.
Howevei:, even if the cases were to purport what Mr. Gilbreath' s asserts, we do not have
that in this case as Ms. Davis and her counsel were provided with notice of the Plaintiff's Third
Motion for Sanctions which asked for "substantial monetary award to Plaintiff from Defense
counsel and her law firm and a direction by the Court that Defense counsel take additional hours
of ethics training ... and.for all such other and further reli~fto which Plaintiff may show herself
to be entitled." Further, any award of sailctions by this Court would be for a continuing pattern
by Ms. Davis to misstate the facts, avoid direct questions and engage in a. total lack of candor
with the Court.
George L. Allen, Sr. Courts Building
600 Commerce Street, 5th Floor
Dallas, Texas 75202
214.653.7427 tel
R.3
MAY-22-2008 17:22 FROM:J!IOGE CARLOS CORTEZ 214 653 6646 T0:92147805200
The Court truly believes tl1at tl1e continuing course of conduct shown by Ms. Davis to the
Court not once but on at least four (4) different occasions during trial, during the jury charge and
during post-verdict motions is sanctionable (as outlined in Plaintiff's 3"' Motion for Sanctions)
and that it further violates the peace, dignity and honor of this Court and under Texas
Govcrrunent Code §21.002 which would allow this Court to impose a sentence upon Ms. Davis
of up to 180 days injail.
However, it is my judicial philosophy that any puilishmcnt above and beyond what is
asked for by opposing counsel would be better served by a separate hearing, if necessary, ruled
on by another judge (as this matter is presently pending before me).
In the Court's opinion, the co11duct found to be sanctionable is egregious misco1iduct that
significantly interferes with the Court's core functions and such conduct continued after repeated
wamings by the Court (and writtrn apologies by Ms. Davis).
The sanctions levied against Ms. Davis are directly related to the sanctionable conduct
and are necessary to preserve ilie integrity of the Court's core function. It is the opinion of this
Court, t11at although these arc "lesser sanctions" that the sanction imposed in all likelihood will
deter repetition of the condnet by Ms. Davis, and deter repetition of the sanctionable conduct by
other lawyers.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiffs Third Motion for San.ctions be
GRANTED and that Ms. Davis shall pay Plaintiffs counsel the sum of$15,000.00 as a monetary
sanction for the additional work necessary for Plaintiffs coi.msel to rebut the misrepresentations
made to this Cou.rt; and it is further ORDERED that Ms. Davis shall complete l 0 hours of ethics
training over and above her continuing legal education requirements to be completed within two
(2) years from ilic date of this Order.
George L. Allen, Sr. Courts Building
600 Commerce Stroot, 5th Floor
Dallas, Texas 7520~
2)4.653.7427 tel
R.4
i'.iAY. -22-2008 17 : 23 FROM : JI lr1GE CARLOS CORTEZ 214 653 6646 T0:32147805200
It is so ORDERED.
this 22° 0 day
.......,_....,.oJ
CARLOS R. CORTEZ
)>
44TH STATE CIVIL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
George L. Allen, Sr. Courts Building
600 Commerce Street, 5th Floor
Dallas, Texas 75202
214.653. 7427 tel
R.5
Filed
TAB 2 12 May 10 P12:21
Gary Fitzsimmons
District Clerk
Dallas District
✥ ✦ ✧ ★ ✩ ✪ ✫ ✬ ✭ ✮ ✯ ✭ ✮ ✰ ✱ ✱
✦ ✪ ✪ ✥ ✦ ✲ ✳ ✴ ✩ ✲ ✲ ✵ ✧ ✶ ✩ ✷ ✸ ✹ ✪ ✺ ✻ ✩ ✳ ✹ ★ ✺ ✵ ✹ ✥ ✺ ✥ ✫ ✧ ✵ ✺
✦ ★ ✺ ✵ ✧ ★ ✺ ✩ ✩ ✼ ✫ ✵ ✺ ✻ ✩ ✳ ✦ ✲ ✲ ✦ ★ ✸
✽ ✫ ✵ ✳ ✫ ✪ ✵ ✧ ✶ ✩ ✷ ✹ ✹ ✹ ✾ ✰ ✰ ✿ ✸
✼ ✦ ❀ ✹ ✲ ❁ ✺ ✵ ✧ ★ ✺ ✷ ✸
✸
✶ ❂ ❃ ❄ ❅ ❆ ❄ ❇ ❇ ✷ ✸
✸
✬ ✸ ✱ ✱ ❉ ❊ ❋ ✧ ✳ ✹ ✥ ✹ ✦ ✲ ✳ ✹ ★ ✺ ✵ ✹ ✥ ✺
❈
✸
✲ ✩ ✩ ✥ ✬ ✵ ✹ ✺ ✥ ✻ ✹ ✩ ✷ ✶ ✦ ✧ ✲ ✦ ✵ ✧ ✶ ✩ ✸
✳ ✩ ✪ ✪ ✦ ✵ ✳ ✷ ✳ ✩ ✪ ✪ ✹ ★ ✲ ✧ ✺ ✩ ★ ✷ ❃ ❅ ● ✸
✵ ✧ ✶ ✩ ✹ ✪ ❍ ✩ ★ ✺ ❀ ✩ ✪ ✺ ✥ ✫ ✵ ✶ ✫ ✵ ✦ ✺ ✹ ✫ ✪ ✸
✸
✳ ■ ❇ ■ ❅ ● ❃ ❅ ❆ ❏ ✬ ✸ ✳ ✦ ✲ ✲ ✦ ★ ✥ ✫ ✧ ✪ ✺ ❁ ✷ ✺ ✩ ❑ ✦ ★
▲ ▼ ◆ ❖ ◗ ▼ ◆ ▼ ❖ ▼ ❘ ❙ ❚ ❙ ❯ ❱ ❙ ❖ ❚ ◆ ▼ ❖ ❱ ▼ ❲ ❳ ❯ ❲ ❙ ❖ ❳ ❨ ❩ ❙ ◆ ❖ ◆ ❬ ❬ ❭ ❱
✴ ✹ ✺ ✻ ✳ ✵ ✦ ✴ ✦ ✲ ✫ ✼
❨ ❩ ❙ ◆ ❖ ◆ ❬ ❬ ❭ ❱ ❪ ◆ ❲ ❳ ◗ ▼ ◆ ▼ ❖ ❬ ▼ ❲ ❱ ❙ ❖ ❚ ◆ ▼ ❖ ❱
✺ ✫ ✺ ✻ ✩ ✻ ✫ ✪ ✫ ✵ ✦ ❫ ✲ ✩ ❋ ✧ ✳ ✽ ✩ ✫ ✼ ★ ✦ ✹ ✳ ✥ ✫ ✧ ✵ ✺ ❴
❵ ❛ ❜ ❝ ❞ ❡ ❝ ❢ ❢ ❣ ❞ ❞ ❤ ❜ ❛ ✐ ❥ ❦ ❛ ❛ ❧ ♠ ♥ ❦ ♦ ❜ ♣ q r ♠ ♣ ❡ ❦ ❦ ❢ s r ❡ t ❦ ✉ ❜ ❛ ❛ ❜ ♣ ✈ s r ✐ ❜ ❞ ❧ ♠ ♥ ❦ ♦ ✇ ✇ ✇ ① ② ② ③ ④ ❜ ⑤ ❝ ❛ ⑥
q r ♠ ♣ ❡ ♦ ❜ ❞ ✐ ✉ ❦ ❢ ❦ ❞ ✐ ❜ ❞ ❡ ♣ ⑦ ❦ ❦ ❤ ⑧ ❧ ❝ ❡ ⑨ t ❝ ❦ ♦ ❵ ❜ ♠ ❛ ❜ ❧ ♠ ♥ ❦ ✉ ❦ ❞ ❞ ❜ r ✐ ♦ ✉ ❦ ❞ ❞ ❝ ♣ ⑦ ♠ ❡ ❦ ♣ ❜ ❞ ✐ ❧ ♠ ♥ ❦ ✇ ❞ ⑩ ❦ ♣ ❡ ⑤ ❦ ❞ ❡
❶ ❷ ❸ ❹ ❷ ❸ ❺ ❻ ❼ ❷ ❽ ❾ ❼ ❿ ➀ ❻ ➁ ❼ ➂ ➃ ❷ ❼ ❽ ❻ ➄ ❷ ❻ ❼ ❷ ❽ ❻ ❷ ➅ ❺ ➆ ❺ ❻ ➀ ➇ ❺ ❽ ➆ ❻ ❼ ❷ ❽ ➂ ➈ ❸ ➉ ➀ ❸ ❺ ❽ ➉ ➊ ❿ ❺ ❼ ❽ ❻ ❼ ❾ ❾ ➋ ➂ ➄ ❷ ❻ ❼ ❷ ❽ ❻ ❷ ➌ ❼ ❻ ➁ ➉ ❸ ❺ ➍
➊ ❿ ❺ ❼ ❽ ❻ ❼ ❾ ❾ ➋
♣ q t ❝ r ✐ ➎ s ❡ ❝ s ❞ ❢ s r ➏ ❜ ❞ ⑨ ❡ ❝ s ❞ ♣ ❜ ❞ ✐ ❥ s ♠ ❛ ✐ ♣ t s ❥ ❡ t ❦ ❤ s ♠ r ❡ ❜ ♣ ❢ s ❛ ❛ s ❥ ♣ ➐
➊ ❸ ❼ ❷ ❸ ❻ ❷ ❻ ➁ ➀ ❶ ❷ ➑ ❸ ❻ ➋ ➂ ➀ ❽ ❻ ❸ ➒ ❷ ❾ ➓ ➑ ➉ ➔ → ➀ ❽ ❻ ❼ ❽ ❻ ➁ ❼ ➂ → ❺ ❻ ❻ ➀ ❸ ➣ ➊ ❿ ❺ ❼ ❽ ❻ ❼ ❾ ❾ ❾ ❼ ❿ ➀ ➉ ❺ ↔ ➁ ❼ ❸ ➉ ➄ ❷ ❻ ❼ ❷ ❽ ❻ ❷
➏ ❜ ❞ ⑨ ❡ ❝ s ❞ ♣ ♦ ⑨ s ⑤ ♥ ❛ ❜ ❝ ❞ ❝ ❞ ↕ s ❢ ⑨ s ♠ ❞ ♣ ❦ ❛ ♦ ❣ ⑤ ⑥ ➙ ⑧ ✉ ❜ ⑩ ❝ ♣ ♦ ❥ t s ❜ ❡ ❡ t ❜ ❡ ❡ ❝ ⑤ ❦ r ❦ ♥ r ❦ ♣ ❦ ❞ ❡ ❦ ✐ ✐ ❦ ❢ ❦ ❞ ✐ ❜ ❞ ❡ ♣ ❝ ❞
➄ ❺ ➒ ➜ ➜ ➣ ➜ ➝ ➝ ➞ ➣ ❻ ➁ ➀ ❶ ❷ ➑ ❸ ❻ ➀ ❽ ❻ ➀ ❸ ➀ ➉ ❺ ❽ ❷ ❸ ➉ ➀ ❸ ➔ ❸ ❺ ❽ ❻ ❼ ❽ ➔ ➂ ❺ ❽ ➆ ❻ ❼ ❷ ❽ ➂ ➟ ❻ ➁ ➀ ➠ ➇ ❺ ❽ ➆ ❻ ❼ ❷ ❽ ➂
❡ t ❝ ♣ ⑤ ❜ ❡ ❡ ❦ r ⑧ ➛ ❞
➈ ❸ ➉ ➀ ❸ ➡ ➢
❜ ↕ ❜ ❝ ❞ ♣ ❡ ➎ ♣ ⑧ ✉ ❜ ⑩ ❝ ♣ ⑧
q t ❦ ♥ ❜ r ❡ ❝ ❦ ♣ t ❦ r ❦ ➤ ⑥ r ❦ ➥ ♠ ❦ ♣ ❡ ❡ t ❦ ❤ s ♠ r ❡ ⑩ ❜ ⑨ ❜ ❡ ❦ ❡ t ❦ ➏ ❜ ❞ ⑨ ❡ ❝ s ❞ ♣ ➛ r ✐ ❦ r ❜ ❞ ✐ ❵ ❛ ❜ ❝ ❞ ❡ ❝ ❢ ❢ t ❦ r ❦ ➤ ⑥
❥ ❝ ❡ t ✐ r ❜ ❥ ♣ t ❦ r q t ❝ r ✐ ➎ s ❡ ❝ s ❞ ❢ s r ➏ ❜ ❞ ⑨ ❡ ❝ s ❞ ♣ ❥ ❝ ❡ t ♥ r ❦ ➦ ♠ ✐ ❝ ⑨ ❦ s ❞ ❡ t ❦ ↕ r s ♠ ❞ ✐ ♣ ❡ t ❜ ❡ ❵ ❛ ❜ ❝ ❞ ❡ ❝ ❢ ❢ ❜ ❞ ✐ t ❦ r
⑨ s ♠ ❞ ♣ ❦ ❛ ❞ s ❛ s ❞ ↕ ❦ r ➤ ❦ ❛ ❝ ❦ ⑩ ❦ ➎ ♣ ⑧ ✉ ❜ ⑩ ❝ ♣ ❜ ⑨ ❡ ❦ ✐ ❥ ❝ ❡ t ❜ ❞ ❝ ❞ ❡ ❦ ❞ ❡ ❡ s ✐ ❦ ⑨ ❦ ❝ ⑩ ❦ ❡ t ❦ ❤ s ♠ r ❡ ⑧ ❵ ❛ ❜ ❝ ❞ ❡ ❝ ❢ ❢ ❜ ❞ ✐ t ❦ r
⑨ s ♠ ❞ ♣ ❦ ❛ ❢ ♠ r ❡ t ❦ r ✐ ❝ ♣ ⑨ ❛ ❜ ❝ ⑤ ❜ ❞ ⑥ ⑨ s ❞ ❡ ❦ ❞ ❡ ❝ s ❞ ❡ t ❜ ❡ ➎ ♣ ⑧ ✉ ❜ ⑩ ❝ ♣ ❜ ⑨ ❡ ❦ ✐ ❥ ❝ ❡ t ❜ ❞ ❝ ❞ ❡ ❦ ❞ ❡ ❡ s ✐ ❦ ⑨ ❦ ❝ ⑩ ❦ ❡ t ❦ ❤ s ♠ r ❡ ⑧
✁ ✂ ✄ ☎ ✆ ✁ ☎ ✂ ✁ ✄ ☎ ✁ ✝ ✞ ✟ ✞ ☎ ✠ ✡ ✞ ✄ ✟ ☎ ✂ ✁ ✄ ✡ ✁ ☛ ☞ ✠ ☛ ✌ ✍ ✎ ✏ ✑ ✌ ✒ ✍ ✓ ✒ ✔ ✔ ✕ ✡
✖ ✂ ☎ ✗ ☞ ☛ ✞ ✖ ✞ ✘ ✁ ✙ ✏ ✑ ✌ ✒ ✍ ✓ ✒ ✔ ✔ ✕ ✚ ☎ ✗ ✂ ☛ ☞ ✆ ✁ ☎ ✂ ✁ ✄ ✙ ✁ ☛ ✡ ✞ ✄ ✟ ☎ ✂ ✁ ✄ ✡
R.6
✛ ✜ ✢ ✣ ✤
WHEREFORE the parties pray the Court enter an order vacating the Sanctions Order and
acknowledging the Plaintiff's withdrawal of her Third Motion for Sanctions with prejudice and
for all such other relief to which they may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
Steven E. Aldous
BRADEN, VARNER, & ALDOUS, P.C.
Texas State Bar N o. 00982100
Robert R. Varner, Jr.
Texas State Bar No. 20499450
703 McKinney Avenue, Suite 400
Dallas, Texas 75202
(214) 740-0212
(21 40-0217 (fax)
ALDOUS LAW FI
Texas State Bar No. 04783250
2311 Cedar Springs, Suite 200
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 526-5595
(214) 526-5525 (fax)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
.,
/(ol&tl ~ .!di_!br'fi/1-/j~J