in Re Stephanie Rios

ACCEPTED 04-15-00557-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 9/4/2015 7:00:05 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK 04-15-00557-CV No. ______________ FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 9/4/2015 7:00:05 PM IN THE COURT OF APPEALS KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS In Re Stephanie Rios, Relator Original Proceedings from the County Court at Law, Sitting as a Probate Court, Starr County, Texas The Honorable Romero Molina Presiding From Cause No. PR-14-016 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Followed by an Emergency Motion to Abate & Preserve Docket Control Order Flor E. Flores THE LAW FIRM OF FLOR E. FLORES, PLLC 700 N. Flores St., Ste. E Rio Grande City, Texas 78582 Tel: (956)263-1786 Fax: (956)263-1750 Email: ffloreslaw@gmail.com Attorney for Stephanie Rios, Relator 1  IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL PARTIES COUNSEL Relator: Stephanie Rios Flor E. Flores THE LAW FIRM OF FLOR E. FLORES, PLLC 700 N. Flores St., Ste. E Rio Grande City, Texas 78582 Tel: (956)263-1786 Fax: (956)263-1750 Email: ffloreslaw@gmail.com Respondent: County Court at Law, sitting as a Probate Court, Starr County, Texas Honorable Romero Molina Real Parties In Interest: Maria Adriana Flores Gilberto Falcon THE LAW OFFICE OF GILBERTO FALCON, PLLC 320 Lindberg Ave. McAllen, Texas 78501 Email: gilberto@gilbertofalconlaw.com Roel “Robie” Flores FLORES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3331 N. Ware Rd. McAllen, Texas 78501 Email: robieflores@att.net Attorney Ad Litem: Minerva Garza LAW OFFICE OF BALDEMAR GARZA AND MINERVA GARZA, PLLC 200 East Second Street Rio Grande City, Texas 78582 Email: garzalawoffice@aol.com 2  TABLE OF CONTENTS Identity of Parties and Counsel…………………………………………………..…2 Index of Authorities……………………………………………………………...4, 5 Statement of Jurisdiction …………………………………………………………..6 Statement of the Case……………………………………………………………7, 8 Issues Presented…………………………………………………………………….9 A. Did the trial court clearly abuse its discretion when it granted a continuance of the trial, over Relator’s written and oral objections, when Real Party in Interest failed to show good cause? …………………………………….19-21 B. Did the trial court clearly abuse its discretion in granting a trial continuance, over Relator’s written and oral objections, to allow Real Party in Interest to conduct discovery outside the deadlines imposed by the Agreed Docket Control Order, when Real Party in Interest failed to show that she exercised due diligence in utilizing the procedures for discovery afforded by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure?.........................................................................20-25 C. Did the trial court clearly abuse its discretion when it granted a continuance of the trial, over Relator’s written and oral objections, to allow Real Party in Interest to conduct discovery outside of the deadlines imposed by the Docket Control Order?..........................................................................................26-28 Statement of Facts……………………………………………………………..10-14 Argument & Authorities……………………………………………………….15-28 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………..29-31 Prayer………………………………………………………………………….32-33 Certificate of Compliance………………………………………………………...34 Certificate of Service……………………………………………………………...35 Appendix………………………………………………………………………36-37 3  INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Case Law Pages Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983)……………………….15, 18, 26 CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 596 (Tex. 1966)……………………………...15 Fritsch v. J.M. English Truck Line, Inc., 151 Tex. 168 (Tex. 1952)...........16, 17, 20 Gabaldon v. General Motors Corp., 876 S.W.2d 367, 370 (Tex.App.—El Paso, 1993…………………………………………………24 Gen. Motors Corp. v. Gayle, 951 S.W.2d 469, 477 (Tex. 1997)…………………16 In re Ford Motor Co., 988 S.W.2d 714, 721 (Tex. 1998)………………………...16 In re H & R Block, 159 S.W.3d 127, 132 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2004)……...16 In re Luna, 12-07-00185-CV (Tex.App.—Tyler, 2007)……………...16, 19, 21, 22 In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 13536 (Tex. 2004) …………………15 In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 203, 210-11 (Tex.2004)……….....16 Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985)…………15 Lopez v. Munoz, Hockema & Reed, L.L.P., 22 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex. 2000)..18, 26 MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Texas Utilities Elec. Co., 995 S.W.2d 647, 650-51 (Tex. 1999)………………………………………26 Nat’l Union Fire Ins., Co. v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995)………………………………………………………...18, 26 Sanchez v. Duke Energy Field Services, Inc., No. 04-05-00926-CV, 2006 WL 2546365, at 2 (Tex.App.—San Antonio Sept. 6, 2006)…………………………...18, 26, 27 State v. Crank, 666 S.W.2d 91, 94 (Tex. 1984)……………………………….16, 20 4 State v. Wood Oil Distrib., Inc., 751 S.W.2d 863 (1988)…………16, 17, 20, 21, 25 Villegas v. Carter, 171 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tex. 1986)………………………...16, 20 Verkin v. SW Cent 1, 784 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. App. 1990)…………………………..23 Wagner & Brown v. E.W. Moran Drilling Co., 702 S.W.2d 760, 769 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1986……………………………………...18, 26 Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992)……………………………..15 Statutes Pages Tex. R. Civ. P. 247……………………………………………………17, 19, 24, 27 Tex. R. Civ. P. 251………………………………………………………..17, 19, 27 Tex. R. Civ. P. 252………………………………………………..17, 20, 21, 23, 24 5  STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION This court has jurisdiction over this petition for writ of mandamus under Section 22.201 and 22.221(b) of the Texas Government Code. 6  STATEMENT OF THE CASE The underlying case involves an Application to Appoint Dependent Administrator of the Estate of Artemio Rios, deceased, and an Application to Determine the Heirs of Artemio Rios, deceased. Both applications were filed by Stephanie Rios, Relator and the biological daughter of Artemio Rios. The cases originated in the County Court at Law, sitting as a Probate Court, of Rio Grande City, Starr County, Texas, in Cause No. PR-14-13 and Cause No PR- 14-16, both styled In the Estate of Artemio Rios, deceased. Real Party in Interest Maria Adriana Flores filed a Petition for Intervention for Determination of the Right of Inheritance on March 4, 2015, alleging to be the common law wife of Artemio Rios, deceased. Relator disputes that a common law marriage between her father and Real Party in Interest existed. Relator filed a Demand for a Jury Trial solely on the issue of whether a common law marriage existed between Real Party in Interest and Decedent. A Special Jury Trial was scheduled for September 3, 2015. Real Party in Interest filed a Motion for Continuance of the Trial on September 1, 2015, on the ground that she had not yet had an opportunity to depose Relator, her biological brother and heir to Artemio Rios, and a non-party. Relator objected to those depositions on the ground that the discovery deadlines imposed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, incorporated into the Agreed Docket Control 7 Order had expired and objected to the trial continuance by way of argument at the hearing held on September 1, 2015 and the written Response and Objection to the Motion for Continuance incorporated by reference into the oral argument. The trial court granted a continuance of the trial, without a showing of good cause and due diligence, and after several resets at the request of Real Party in Interest over Relator’s objections. Relator complains that Respondent clearly abused its discretion in granting a trial continuance to allow Real Party in Interest to conduct discovery after the expiration of the discovery deadline and disregarding the Agreed Docket Control Order. Relator further complains that Respondent clearly abused its discretion in opening the discovery period two (2) days before the scheduled trial date to allow Real Party in Interest to take depositions of witnesses when Real Party in Interest completely failed to exercise due diligence in conducting discovery during the discovery period, in contravention to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the Agreed Docket Control Order. 8  ISSUES PRESENTED A. Did the trial court clearly abuse its discretion when it granted a continuance of the trial, over Relator’s written and oral objections, when Real Party in Interest failed to show good cause? B. Did the trial court clearly abuse its discretion in granting a trial continuance, over Relator’s written and oral objections, to allow Real Party in Interest to conduct discovery outside the deadlines imposed by the Agreed Docket Control Order, when Real Party in Interest failed to show that she exercised due diligence in utilizing the procedures for discovery afforded by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure? C. Did the trial court clearly abuse its discretion when it granted a continuance of the trial, over Relator’s written and oral objections, to allow Real Party in Interest to conduct discovery outside of the deadlines imposed by the Docket Control Order? 9  STATEMENT OF FACTS Relator Stephanie Rios was the biological daughter of Artemio Rios, deceased. Artemio Rios died as a result of an automobile accident on November 30, 2013. Relator filed a wrongful death suit in Cause No. DC-13-971 in the 381st Judicial District Court, Rio Grande City, Starr County, Texas. Relator subsequently also filed an Application for Appointment of Dependent Administrator under Cause No. PR-14-13 in the County Court at Law, sitting as a Probate Court, Rio Grande City, Starr County, Texas. [Apx. 1]. Relator also filed an Application to Determine Heirship in Cause No. PR-14-16 in the County Court at Law, sitting as a Probate Court, Rio Grande City, Starr County, Texas. [Apx. 2]. Relator’s wrongful death suit is set for Trial on October 19, 2015. [Apx. 3]. Real Party in Interest Maria Adriana Flores filed a Petition in Intervention for Determination of the Right of Inheritance on or about March 4, 2015, claiming to be the common law wife of Artemio Rios, deceased. [Apx. 4] Since the Intervention was filed, both cases were set for hearings on Relator’s pending applications and at every hearing set, Real Party in Interest requested a reset by way of oral motions for continuances of the hearings. Relator objected to every reset of the case and the trial court nonetheless granted each request for a continuance. The trial court set the case for a hearing on all pending applications/motions for March 26, 2015. Again, Real Party in Interest requested a 10 reset, and again, over Relator’s objections, the trial court granted the reset and ordered the parties to enter into a docket control order and set the case for trial. Relator filed a Motion to Compel Discovery and after a hearing, Real Party in Interest was ordered to respond to Relator’s discovery by July 30, 2015. [Apx. 5]. Relator attempted to prepare a Docket Control Order, sent Real Party in Interest’s attorney an email requesting tentative trial dates, and counsel never responded. [Apx. 6] Relator filed a Motion for Docket Control Order on June 11, 2015 and said motion was set for a hearing on July 23, 2015. [Apx. 7] On the same date, the parties entered into an Agreed Docket Control Order, which was signed by the Court on the same date. [Apx. 8] Said Agreed Docket Control Order set all the deadlines, including deadlines to complete discovery, as per the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Relator took depositions of Real Party in Interest and three witnesses disclosed in Real Party in Interest’s response to Relator’s discovery. [Apx. 9] These witnesses were disclosed late and only after the filing of a Motion to Compel. The depositions of the Real Party in Interest and her witnesses were set for July 31, 2015 by agreement of the parties and later moved to August 4, 2015 at Real Party in Interest’s request. Said depositions were noticed after the discovery deadline by agreement of the parties, as allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and due to Real Party in Interest’s failure to timely disclose in response to discovery requests. 11  Real Party in Interest for the first time attempted to engage in discovery and sent Relator’s counsel a letter with tentative deposition dates on August 6, 2015, after the expiration of the discovery deadlines as per the Agreed Docket Control Order. [Apx. 10]. Real Party in Interest, however, attempted to set those depositions in the wrongful death case filed by Relator individually and on behalf of the Estate of Artemio Rios, her deceased father, and filed in Cause No. DC-13-971 in the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas. Id. Real Party in Interest also filed an intervention in that case. Defendant in Cause No. DC-13-971 filed a Motion to Quash and for Protective Order on the ground that the depositions of the parties noticed by Real Party in Interest had already been taken. [Apx. 11]. Real Party in Interest was notified, and in that case also, failed to exercise due diligence and failed to participate in those depositions. Moreover, Real Party in Interest’s intervention had also already been stricken at the time she noticed depositions of the parties. [Apx. 12]. Real Party in Interest incorrectly claimed in her argument on the continuance of the trial in this case that Relator not only failed to cooperate in scheduling depositions, that said depositions were noticed unilaterally because of Relator’s failure to cooperate, and that Relator filed an untimely Motion to Quash and for Protective Order. Relator denies those allegations as evidenced by the documents attached in Appendix 8 – 11 and in fact, never filed a Motion to Quash and for Protective Order. 12  Real Party in Interest again sent another correspondence attempting to notice depositions in Cause No. DC-13-971. [Apx. 13]. Real Party in Interest noticed depositions for August 25, 2015 and Relator filed a timely Motion to Quash and for Protective Order on the ground that the depositions were noticed after expiration of the discovery deadlines as per the Docket Control Order, that Real Party in Interest failed to comply with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure in noticing the deposition of a non-party, and that Real Party in Interest failed to comply with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure in failing to properly schedule depositions in Cause No. PR-14- 16. [Apx. 14]. Real Party in Interest filed Amended Notices of Intent to Depose on August 31, 2015 and Relator again filed a second timely Motion to Quash and for Protective Order on the same grounds. [Apx. 15]. Real Party in Interest filed a Motion for Continuance of the Trial on August 30, 2015, alleging that she had not had an opportunity to depose witnesses. [Apx. 16]. Relator timely filed a Response and Objection to the Motion for Continuance on August 31, 2015. [Apx. 17, 17-A through 17-K]. The trial court set the case for a hearing on Real Party in Interest’s motion for continuance for September 1, 2015. At that hearing, Real Party in Interest urges a trial continuance to allow her to depose Relator and her witnesses and further claims that Relator could not quash the depositions the motions to quash required a five (5) day notice of a hearing on said motions had been filed less than five (5) days of the September 1, 2015 hearing. 13 Real Party in Interest fails to point out that her untimely request to depose witnesses days before the trial necessitated the filing of said motions to quash. Real Party in Interest also fails to point out that she was attempting to schedule depositions after the expiration of the discovery period as per the Agreed Docket Control Order. More significantly, Real Party in Interest fails to point out that during the six (6) months period since her intervention was filed, she completely failed to exercise due diligence in scheduling deposition or conducting any discovery whatsoever, even though she requested several resets of this case. In addition, when Real Party in Interest, through her counsel, entered into the Agreed Docket Control Order, she was well aware that a Demand for Jury Trial had been made and filed by Relator and that Relator had made at least two attempts to set the matter for trial. After two docket control order hearings, a trial date was secured by agreement of all parties. 14  ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is available only in limited circumstances. CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 596 (Tex. 1966) (orig. proceedings) (citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceedings)). Mandamus is appropriate “only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no other adequate remedy by law.” Id. “In order to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy.” In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 13536 (Tex. 2004); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 83940. “A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision ‘so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to clear and prejudicial error of law.’” Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (quoting Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985). “Appellate courts will not intervene to control incidental trial court rulings when an adequate remedy by appeal exists.” In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004)(orig. proceeding); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. “But a party will not have an adequate remedy by appeal (1) when the appellate court would not be able to cure the trial court's discovery error, (2) when the party's ability to present a viable claim or defense at trial is vitiated or severely compromised by the trial court's discovery error, or (3) when the trial court disallows 15 discovery and the missing discovery cannot be made a part of the appellate record or the trial court, after proper request, refuses to make it part of the record.” In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 203, 210-11 (Tex.2004) (orig. proceeding); In re Ford Motor Co., 988 S.W.2d 714, 721 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 843. The denial of a motion for continuance is an incidental trial ruling ordinarily not reviewable by mandamus. Gen. Motors Corp. v. Gayle, 951 S.W.2d 469, 477 (Tex. 1997). An exception to this general rule occurs when special circumstances are present. Id. Special circumstances are present when other errors exist that are themselves properly reviewed on petition for writ of mandamus. Id.; In re H & R Block, 159 S.W.3d 127, 132 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2004, orig. proceeding [mand. dismissed]); In re Luna, 12-07-00185-CV (Tex.App.—Tyler, 2007). “It is well established that the granting or denial of a motion for continuance is within the trial court’s sound discretion.” State v. Wood Oil Distrib., Inc., 751 S.W.2d 863 (1988) (citing Villegas v. Carter, 171 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tex. 1986)); State v. Crank, 666 S.W.2d 91, 94 (Tex. 1984). “The exercise of discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless the record discloses a clear abuse of discretion.” Id. “It is also well established that the failure of a litigant to diligently utilize the rules of civil procedure for discovery purposes will not authorize the granting of a continuance.” Fritsch v. J.M. English Truck Line, Inc., 151 Tex. 168 (Tex. 1952). 16 “A trial court will not be required to grant a motion for continuance, at the risk of committing error in overruling it, when the allegations in the motion examined in light of the record show beyond cavil a complete lack of diligence…” Id. at 858. “A party who does not diligently utilize the procedures for discovery can seldom claim reversible error when the trial court refuses a continuance.” State v. Wood Oil Distributing, Inc., 751 S.W.2d 863, 865 (Tex. 1988). Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 247 further states that “[n]o cause which has been set upon the trial docket of the court shall be taken from the trial docket for the date set except by agreement of the parties or for good cause upon motion and notice to the opposing party.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 247; Tex. R. Civ. P. 251. The rules further state that “[t]he failure to obtain the deposition of any witness residing within 100 miles of the courthouse or the county in which the suit is pending shall not be regarded as want of diligence when diligence has been used to secure the personal attendance of such witness under the rules of law….” Tex. R. Civ. P. 252. Rule 252 further requires that “if a continuance is sought to depose a witness, the motion must include the following information: 1.) the witness’s name and address (street, county, and state of residence); and 2.) a description of the testimony the witness will probably give and what the party expects the testimony to prove. Id. Agreed docket control orders are governed by contract principles. “When a contract is not ambiguous, the construction of the written instrument is a question of 17 law for the court that is reviewed de novo.” MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Texas Utilities Elec. Co., 995 S.W.2d 647, 650-51 (Tex. 1999); Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983). “Whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law that must be decided by examining the contract as a whole in light of the circumstances present when the contract was entered.” Nat’l Union Fire Ins., Co. v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995); Sanchez v. Duke Energy Field Services, Inc., No. 04-05-00926-CV, 2006 WL 2546365, at 2 (Tex.App.—San Antonio Sept. 6, 2006, pet. denied); see also Wagner & Brown v. E.W. Moran Drilling Co., 702 S.W.2d 760, 769 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1986, no writ)(court must determine from expressions used in a written contract whether there has been a meeting of the minds). “If a written contract is worded so that it can be given a definite or certain legal meaning, then it is unambiguous.” Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 907 S.W.2d at 520; Coker, 650 S.W.2d at 393. “An ambiguity does not arise simply because the parties offer forceful and diametrically opposing interpretations.” Lopez v. Munoz, Hockema & Reed, L.L.P., 22 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex. 2000); Sanchez, 2006 WL 2546365 at 2. “Rather, a contract is ambiguous only if two or more reasonable interpretations are genuinely possible after application of the pertinent rules of interpretation to the face of the instrument.” Sanchez, 2006 WL 2546365 at 2. 18  I. Real Party in Interest Failed to Show Good Cause “A continuance shall not be granted except for sufficient cause supported by affidavit, or by consent of the parties, or by operation of law.” In Re Luna, 12-07- 00185-CV (Tex.App.—Tyler, 2007). Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 247 further states that “[n]o cause which has been set upon the trial docket of the court shall be taken from the trial docket for the date set except by agreement of the parties or for good cause upon motion and notice to the opposing party.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 247; Tex. R. Civ. P. 251. Relator contends that Real Party in Interest’s motion for continuance and her argument at the hearing on said motion are devoid of any showing of good cause. In her motion, Real Party in Interest simply states that “counsel has previously noticed the opposing parties in this case, and they improperly quashed the depositions…” The verified affidavit attached to her motion for continuance is also devoid of any reason, justification or ground which constitutes good cause for the granting of a continuance. What Real Party in Interest fails to state in her motion is that she was attempting to schedule depositions just days before the scheduled trial and past the expiration of the discovery deadlines as per the Agreed Docket Control Order. Absent an agreement between the parties to allow for depositions past the expiration of discovery deadlines, Real Party in Interest was required to show good cause for a continuance, which she failed to do. Relator further contends that Real Party in 19 Interest could not show good cause for the granting of a continuance when Real Party in Interest had already unreasonably delayed the proceedings by requesting resets over Relator’s objections, all of which were granted by the trial court, also absent good cause. II. Real Party in Interest Failed to Exercise Due Diligence “It is well established that the granting or denial of a motion for continuance is within the trial court’s sound discretion.” State v. Wood Oil Distrib., Inc., 751 S.W.2d 863 (1988) (citing Villegas v. Carter, 171 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tex. 1986)); State v. Crank, 666 S.W.2d 91, 94 (Tex. 1984). “The exercise of discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless the record discloses a clear abuse of discretion.” Id. “A trial court will not be required to grant a motion for continuance, at the risk of committing error in overruling it, when the allegations in the motion examined in light of the record show beyond cavil a complete lack of diligence…” Id. at 858. “A party who does not diligently utilize the procedures for discovery can seldom claim reversible error when the trial court refuses a continuance.” State v. Wood Oil Distributing, Inc., 751 S.W.2d 863, 865 (Tex. 1988). “The failure to obtain the deposition of any witness residing within 100 miles of the courthouse or the county in which the suit is pending shall not be regarded as want of diligence when diligence has been used to secure the personal attendance of such witness under the rules of law….” Tex. R. Civ. P. 252. Rule 252 further 20 requires that “if a continuance is sought to depose a witness, the motion must include the following information: 1.) the witness’s name and address (street, county, and state of residence); and 2.) a description of the testimony the witness will probably give and what the party expects the testimony to prove. Id. In Wood, Wood asked for a continuance “[o]n the morning of the trial…to obtain additional time to take depositions of the State’s witnesses….” State v. Wood Oil Distrib., Inc., 751 S.W.2d 863 (Tex. 1988). “Wood also sought the continuance in order to discovery more detailed information from the State….” Id. Wood had not conducted discovery during the two years in which suit was pending. Id. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because Wood did not prove diligence. Id. The Court said that Wood’s inability…to take the deposition of State’s witnesses was ‘a predicament of its own making.’ Id. The Court further stated “that is a risk Wood took by not diligently pursuing discovery.” Id. “To reward such conduct with a new trial is manifestly improper.” Id. Moreover, in Luna, a trial was scheduled for May 21, 2007 by Agreed Docket Control Order. In Re Luna, 12-07-00185-CV (Tex.App—Tyler, 2007). On May 4, 2007, Luna filed a motion for continuance of the trial “requesting that the trial be continued for sixty days because she needed additional time…to obtain deposition testimony...to obtain precise details concerning the nature, depth, and breadth of the operational agreement in effect at the time of this incident….” Id. A hearing was 21 held on May 15, 2007, and the trial court denied said motion. Id. Luna [sought] “’mandamus relief from the respondent trial court’s denial of her motion for continuance’….[and] ‘also filed a motion for an emergency stay of all proceedings pending…disposition of her petition.’” Id. The Court denied mandamus relief and held that “the record does not affirmatively show the diligence necessary for Luna to obtain a continuance to conduct additional discovery.” Id. Realtor contends that Real Party in Interest has failed to show any exercise of due diligence on her part to engage in discovery. Real Party in Interest’s motion for continuance fails to emphasize that she failed to engage in any discovery during the pendency of the suit and that on the eve of trial, she attempts to take depositions after expiration of the discovery deadlines. Like in Luna, Real Party in Interest has failed to show due diligence in utilizing the discovery procedures afforded to all parties by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, also like in Luna, Relator contends that the record in this case does not affirmatively show the diligence necessary for Real Party in Interest to obtain a continuance to conduct additional discovery. Additionally, Relator contends that Real Party in Interest’s motion for continuance should have been denied because in addition to failing to show good cause and due diligence, her motion for continuance is not in substantial compliance with Rule 252, which requires that “when requesting additional time for discovery, a party must fulfill six requirements under oath: 1.) the testimony is material; 2.) 22 proof of materiality; 3.) show of diligence; 4.) cause of failure, if known; 5.) evidence not available; 6.) continuance is not for delay only but so that justice be done. Tex. R. Civ. P. 252; Verkin v. SW Cent 1, 784 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. App. 1990). Real Party in Interest counsel filed a motion for continuance and attached an affidavit to said motion. In his affidavit, Real Party in Interest’s counsel simply states “I am hereby acquainted with the facts stated in the Motion for Continuance.” The motion itself states that “counsel has previously noticed the opposing parties in this case, and they improperly quashed the depositions…” It further states that “depositions are scheduled for September 1, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.; 10:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m.” Relator filed a written response and objection to Real Party in Interest’s motion for continuance, and incorporated written arguments into oral arguments at the hearing on said motion, controverting the statements in the motion and objecting to its non- compliance with the rules. Relator contends that Real Party in Interest failed to comply with Rule 252 in that she has completely failed to show that she exercised due diligence in trying to obtaining depositions and conduct any discovery within the six (6) months that her intervention had been pending; has failed to completely state a cause for her failure to do so; has failed to show that evidence was not available during that time; and has failed to show how her request for a continuance is for anything other than to delay the case, an impermissible attempt to obtain evidence and conduct discovery past the discovery deadlines, and cause prejudice to 23 Relator. Real Party in Interest has further failed to state in her motion for continuance “the type of information sought” in the depositions she attempts to notice. Gabaldon v. General Motors Corp., 876 S.W.2d 367, 370 (Tex.App.—El Paso, 1993, no writ). In fact, Real Party in Interest’s motion for continuance is devoid of any of the information required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 252. The strict requirements of Rule 252 clearly state that ‘if a continuance is sought to depose a witness, the motion must include…’ the above stated requirements. Tex. R. Civ. P. 252. The language in Rule 252 is mandatory, and Real Party in Interest’s motion for continuance does not satisfy those mandatory requirements. Most importantly, Real Party in Interest’s motion for continuance also fails to state that the discovery period had expired at the time she attempted to schedule depositions. Real Party in Interest’s motion for continuance is devoid of any showing of due diligence in procuring depositions of witnesses in this case. In fact, Real Party in Interest has failed to satisfy the requirement and describe the attempts she has made in a period of six (6) months to secure discovery of evidence. Rule 247 further imposes mandatory language when a party moves for a trial continuance to conduct discovery. Rule 247 specifically requires that Real Party in Interest show good cause and due diligence, none of which Real Party in Interest showed in her motion for continuance or argument at the hearing on said motion. Real Party in Interest’s only argument in her attempt to show good cause was that she had not taken depositions 24 yet. However, Real Party in Interest failed to emphasize that her attempts to depose witnesses were all made after the expiration of the discovery deadlines. Real Party in Interests attempts to show due diligence was to produce correspondence and emails showing her attempts to notice depositions, but Real Party in interest also failed to emphasize that the correspondence and email sent were for attempts to schedule depositions in a case not before the Probate Court, and most importantly, also beyond the Docket Control Order and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure deadlines. Real Party in Interest attempts to show good cause and due diligence in scheduling depositions within a week from the scheduled Trial. Real Party in Interest’s failure to conduct discovery and take depositions was not the result of accident or mistake, but rather the result of conscious indifference. Relator has no adequate remedy at law because the trial court’s order opening discovery two (2) days before the scheduled trial and clearly way past the expiration of the discovery deadlines now subject Relator and her witnesses that Real Party in Interest could have taken during the six-month period from the filing of the petition in intervention to the date of trial. “A party who does not diligently utilize the procedures for discovery can seldom claim reversible error when the trial court refuses a continuance.” State v. Wood Oil Distributing, Inc., 751 S.W.2d 863, 865 (Tex. 1988). 25  III. Agreed Docket Control Order Agreed docket control orders are governed by contract principles. “When a contract is not ambiguous, the construction of the written instrument is a question of law for the court that is reviewed de novo.” MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Texas Utilities Elec. Co., 995 S.W.2d 647, 650-51 (Tex. 1999); Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983). “Whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law that must be decided by examining the contract as a whole in light of the circumstances present when the contract was entered.” Nat’l Union Fire Ins., Co. v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995); Sanchez v. Duke Energy Field Services, Inc., No. 04-05-00926-CV, 2006 WL 2546365, at 2 (Tex.App.—San Antonio Sept. 6, 2006, pet. denied); see also Wagner & Brown v. E.W. Moran Drilling Co., 702 S.W.2d 760, 769 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1986, no writ)(court must determine from expressions used in a written contract whether there has been a meeting of the minds). “If a written contract is worded so that it can be given a definite or certain legal meaning, then it is unambiguous.” Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 907 S.W.2d at 520; Coker, 650 S.W.2d at 393. “An ambiguity does not arise simply because the parties offer forceful and diametrically opposing interpretations.” Lopez v. Munoz, Hockema & Reed, L.L.P., 22 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex. 2000); Sanchez, 2006 WL 2546365 at 2. “Rather, a contract is ambiguous only if two or more reasonable interpretations are genuinely possible after application of the 26 pertinent rules of interpretation to the face of the instrument.” Sanchez, 2006 WL 2546365 at 2. Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 247 further states that “[n]o cause which has been set upon the trial docket of the court shall be taken from the trial docket for the date set except by agreement of the parties or for good cause upon motion and notice to the opposing party.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 247; Tex. R. Civ. P. 251. Real Party in Interest filed her Petition in Intervention six (6) months prior to the date of the scheduled Trial. Real Party in Interest joined in the Agreed Docket Control Order setting the case for Trial on September 3, 2015. It is significant to emphasize that the Agreed Docket Control Order was entered into after the second request for a docket control order by Relator. Approximately two (2) months passed between the first hearing on Relator’s Motion for Docket Control Order and the second. During that period of time, Real Party in Interest failed to engage in absolutely any discovery. On July 23, 2015, the Agreed Docket Control Order was executed by all parties and signed by the Court. During the period of time between the filing of the intervention and the trial, Real Party in Interest failed to conduct any discovery. On the eve of trial, Real Party in Interest attempted to notice depositions, after the discovery deadlines have passed, and without proving any due diligence in attempting to conduct discovery or procure depositions of the witnesses. 27  Relator contends that principles of contract apply to the Agreed Docket Control Order executed between the parties. That agreement clearly states that all deadlines, including the deadline to complete discovery, were set as per the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The Texas Rules are very clear that discovery begins on the date the suit is filed up to thirty (30) days before trial. There is no ambiguity in the Agreed Docket Control Order executed between the parties and no reason for the agreement of the parties to be undone by the trial court or Real Party in Interest. The trial court provided no justification for undoing the agreement of the parties and opening the discovery deadline to allow Real Party in Interest to take depositions just days before the scheduled trial, especially when the agreement governs the deadlines in this case. Relator contends that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in opening the discovery deadlines in contravention to valid Agreed Docket Control Order and further in rewarding Real Party in Interest with the opportunity to take depositions after expiration of the discovery deadlines, when Real Party in Interest failed to show good cause and due diligence. The trial court’s actions in ignoring the docket control order are in contravention with the rules of law and applicable case law, and constituted a clear abuse of discretion. 28  CONCLUSION The trial record is clear that Real Party in Interest intervened in the probate matters and did absolutely nothing after the intervention. Real Party in Interest claims to have been the common law wife of Artemio Rios, decedent, and not only has she failed to produce any evidence or substantial witnesses to support her claim, but has also engaged in zero discovery. Real Party in Interest, during the six-months period she has been in this litigation, has done nothing other than request reset after reset, and after agreeing to a trial date, files a Motion for Continuance of the trial just five (5) days before the trial is set to begin, claiming she hasn’t had the “opportunity” to depose Relator and some of her witness. It was not Real Party in Interests lack of opportunity to depose, but an absolute lack of due diligence on her party. The Texas Rules are very clear that discovery begins on the date the suit is filed up to thirty (30) days before trial. On the eve of trial, Real Party in Interest tries to come up with some evidence, through depositions, to prove her claim. With the assistance of the trial court, Real Party in Interest was given yet another opportunity to do the work she should have done during the discovery period. Both Real Party in Interest and the trial court have completely ignored the fact that the parties agreed to the Docket Control Order and that that Order and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure are clear as to the discovery deadlines. Real Party in Interest’s 29 failure to diligently utilize the procedures for discovery disprove any attempted showing of good cause for the granting of a trial continuance to conduct discovery. Relator will be prejudiced by the granting of a continuance in this case because the trial court not only gave Real Party in Interest even more time but most significantly, has allowed Real Party in Interest to do the work that she should have done to prove her case within the deadlines imposed by the Agreed Docket Control Order. Real Party in Interest has had more than sufficient time to conduct discovery and obtain evidence to prove her alleged claim of common law and has failed to do so. Relator contends that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the trial continuance and opening discovery to allow Real Party in Interest to take depositions and attempt obtain evidence to prove her claim of common law marriage, essentially shifts the burden to Relator to disprove the claim. Relator has been diligent in conducting discovery, secured evidence, and procured witnesses to dispute Real Party in Interest’s alleged claim of common law marriage to Relator’s deceased father while Real Party in Interest has caused nothing but delays in these proceedings and has failed to do anything to prove her alleged claim of common law marriage. By granting the trial continuance, the trial court has allowed Real Party in Interest to bypass the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the Agreed Docket Control Order, giving her the opportunity to obtain evidence to prove her case, when she has displayed a complete lack of diligence in doing so within the deadlines imposed by 30 the rules. The trial court’s action clearly amounts to abuse of discretion, especially when the trial court had previously allowed Real Party in Interest resets of the matters pending before the court to prepare her case. Relator further contends that the trial court’s actions of opening the discovery period to allow Real Party in Interest to take depositions outside the discovery deadlines is not only a clear abuse of discretion but extremely prejudicial to Relator, who vehemently disputes the Real Party in Interest’s common law marriage with Relator’s father and has worked diligently to counter Real Party in Interest’s claim and prepare for trial. To excuse Real Party in Interest’s lack of due diligence and allow her to conduct discovery in contravention with the rules and the Agreed Docket Control Order constitutes a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court. The trial court in its ruling allowed Real Party in Interest to take the deposition of Relator, her biological brother, and a non-party and ordered Relator to make herself and her brother available for depositions on or before September 10, 2015. Relator has no adequate remedy at law and moves this Court for a writ of mandamus to stay those depositions and the trial date rescheduled to September 17, 2015, and directing Respondent to abate all further proceedings in this matter until this Honorable Court rules in this matter. 31  PRAYER Relator requests that this Court grant her Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Order the County Court at Law, sitting as a Probate Court, Starr County, Texas, to vacate its Order dated September 1, 2015 granting Real Party in Interest’s trial continuance and opening the discovery period to allow Real Party in Interest to take depositions of witnesses outside the Docket Control Order deadlines. Relator further requests that this Court enter an emergency order abating all further proceedings before the County Court at Law and to preserve the Docket Control Order and its deadlines in all respects which was entered by the parties on July 23, 2015, closing the discovery period as per the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure incorporated into the Docket Control Order. Relator further requests that this Court abate the depositions ordered by the trial court to be taken on or before September 10, 2015 and the trial set for September 17, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. until a further date after a decision by this Court. Relator further requests that this Court remand the case for trial without further discovery, and any filing of motions past the deadline to file motions, and for any and all other relief, in law or in equity, to which Relator may be justly entitled to. 32 Respectfully Submitted, /S/FLOR E. FLORES Flor E. Flores THE LAW FIRM OF FLOR E. FLORES, PLLC 700 N. Flores St., Ste. E Rio Grande City, Texas 78582 Tel: (956)263-1786 Fax: (956)263-1750 Email: ffloreslaw@gmail.com Attorney for Stephanie Rios, Relator 33  CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4, I hereby certify that this Petition for Writ of Mandamus contains 4,995 words. This is a computer generated document created in MicroSoft Word 2013, using 14-point typeface for all text, except the footnotes which are 12-point typeface. In making this certificate of compliance, I am relying on the word count provided by the software used to prepare the document. /S/FLOR E. FLORES Flor E. Flores 34  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Flor E. Flores, certify that on this the 4th day of September, 2015, I served, with prior notice, a copy of this Petition for Writ of Mandamus, to all required parties as per the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, as follows: VIA HAND DELIVERY VIA CMRRR NO: 7014 1820 0001 7960 7289 Hon. Romero Molina 504 N. Britton Ave. Rio Grande City, Texas 78582 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL: gilberto@gilbertofalconlaw.com Gilberto Falcon THE LAW OFFICE OF GILBERTO FALCON, PLLC 320 Lindberg Ave. McAllen, Texas 78501 Attorney for Real Party in Interest Maria Adriana Flores VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL: robieflores@att.net Roel “Robie” Flores FLORES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3331 N. Ware Rd. McAllen, Texas 78501 Attorney for Real Party in Interest Maria Adriana Flores VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL: garzalrawoffice@aol.com Minerva Garza LAW OFFICE OF BALDEMAR GARZA AND MINERVA GARZA, PLLC 200 East Second Street Rio Grande City, Texas 78582 Attorney Ad Litem for Unknown Heir of Artemio Rios, Deceased /S/FLOR E. FLORES 35  APPENDIX 1. Application for Appointment of Dependent Administrator 2. Application to Determine Heirship 3. Agreed Amended Docket Control Order – Cause No. DC-13-971 4. Petition in Intervention for Determination of Right of Inheritance 5. Oder on Applicant’s Amended Motion to Compel Discovery & for Sanctions 6. Email to Real Party in Interest’s Attorney Re: Docket Control Order and late Discovery 7. Applicant’s Motion for Docket Control Order 8. Agreed Docket Control Order – Cause No. PR-14-16 9. Amended Notices of Intention to Take Video and/or Oral Depositions, with Subpoena Duces Tecum of Maria Adriana Flores, Ana Belia Rios, Beatriz Rios, and Felix Rios, Jr. 10. August 6, 2015 letter from Real Party in Interest’s Attorney attempting to schedule Depositions in Cause No. DC-13-971 11. Defendant’s Motion to Quash Depositions of Stephanie Rios Noticed by Intervenor Maria Adriana Flores and Motion for Protective Order 12. Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Strike Maria Adriana Flores Individual Capacity’s Plea in Intervention 13. Letter from Real Party in Interest dated August 18, 2015 attempting to schedule depositions in Cause No. DC-13-971 14. Applicant’s Motion to Quash Depositions of Stephanie Rios, Artemio Rios, Jr. and Hugo Alaniz, Jr. 15. Amended Notice of Intent to Take the Video and/or Oral Deposition of Stephanie Rios, Artemio Rios, Jr. and Hugo Alaniz, Jr. 36 16. Real Party in Interest’s Motion for Continuance 17. Relator’s Response & Objection to Motion for Continuance (17 and 17-A thru 17-K) 37  0cloc( MAY 0 I 20r{ IN TIIE ESTATE OF li RT ARTEMIO RIOS, s 9 $ $ SI'ARR COUNTY,TF]XAS TO THE IIONORARLE JUDGE OF COUITT COMES NOW, STEPHANTE LEE RIOS. ApplcanL. ,nd files Lhrs Appticaron ApFoinrmenrofDepsndenr Adjrnj $mlor oa Lhe Flae oI ARTEMIO RloS, Dec.rsld xnd ..use oracr'or wjllshow Lu!o rhrs coun rhe ioltoung: is m individul doniciled in and restding al l8j0 Cuadalupe St, Rio ^. Texa 78j82, SlaF Coulr_ Texas, and jj CiLl, _Applicanr Crando a.r0rg ,n Lhr rnrtrer try and rhroush her dtrt) iullDrized rdrEsenhhe. Thr app|canr r Lhe dccedor\ daugncr drd ha\4n rL.r!{trr rrc cskre ofARTEMTO RIOS, Deceased Deceden! died on Novenber 30, 201:l h Rio Crdde CiLy. SLan CourLy. Tcx{ ar $eaee ol 19 yeds. Thedcccdenrdied inle$arc L This Coun ha j uisdrcrion ord verue isproper because Al.RrrMtO RrOS Deccasrd war doniciled.nd had a n\ed ptace ofEsidcnce in drh.ounrr, r( Lho trDr oi dcrLh h Sr.. CounLv Decedenr owned propeny described gcDerxt ], as real pbper' snh an unknou eilue a( de dme oI tiling tlis applaion Decedem owned propcny dcscribcd Eenemily !s F,:omr propcly wi(h an unknorD wlue aL the rine offitine rhis apptiadon Appr.ur.on beball.of Deccdent, fited a wrlngfLt dsarh slir curcnLly pendoe uDder - Cause No DC-ll971. in the l8l'L Jndicjat Dhhcr cour1. sLa,r Co!nly, Texas. tor damages ,o excss ofOne Mnlion DoUan ($t,000,000.00)  v, Tle @es, ages, meiul shlus, addre$es. dd Elanon ps !o decedenr of each her ro lhe d@edenL is a follows: STEIHANIE LEE RIOS (razsrle.l Ager l8 Single lElo cuadatupe Sl. Rio Gande Ciry, Tex$ 78582 s@coury,Texas ARTEMIO tuOS, JR. (lb,l 1810 cuadallpe SL Rio c@de CiLy, Texas 78582 SuE Cobly, rexas u As far a knoq by Lhe aFpLjcanr ar dre riDe ofttrc fi jDe otLh6.ppLtcaLt.n. rh. tiLkNing child *d presuinably bom 6 rtre decedenr. burpaLcnry rsdtrpurert AMYRTOS 5691Tmpi@St. RioCmndeCiry.TexasTB58z SLacCouhry.Texas YII, As te d known by lhe applictur at rhe hre of Lhe fihrg of dns app icatron,.{RTBMIO RIOS, Decedent, w6 neler ndied. Th€ inteEs in Decedenas eslarc requtfes mmed,,le ipFonrmeDr ol.a Dependenr Adm'ntrtra'or ARTEMIO RrOS has died *nho lervnrs a w lt. thc indivrdlalr named jn rh6 applicarion consrirule aU of rhc Decedcnfs hei6 ed disorbules and have lon rn rh6 appncauon ed de advNabiliLy ofhavins a Dependcnl Adnnntsldtron S,l.DpflANtE agree on LEE RIOS has been designard by the known hens aL Iaw otDecedenr 10 se.!e as Dependenl Adminhttsbr. The distribulees reqlesl rhar 0o rcrion be Gken ,n lLls ( o0n on ,e djon @ lhe sedeme offiedecedenasesEcofier rd Lhe rerum ofa. Lnverory,opprarscmenr, and tisrot clains of rhe de@denas cNaLe and se{le all pending clainrs for money dama8es on behalt.of  Decedhas .srsF AI disribLkes join in rhjs rc.lLes ard warve rc issrancc aDd seN,cc of citalion. Allesed heirs &d dinriburees .a Deccdenl whose paremiry is dhplred have bcen seryed w'lh Cirado. rhrcugh pesonat seiviccs Appl'c&l would be a suraote rop.esenlarive, is enLnlcd ro admnxjraLjor and ,5 nor dhqualilied by lowro srve ds aonx.6tErorot dns esate The adhinkrraror ofrtris e$are shou d be siver rtrc l.oltowDrg !olej\: I Tale charge ad possession of DeccdeDas esmle. LnctLLdmg. bd noL Iinrired Lo. peenar and real popeay 2. Payany dd all dcbrowedbyDecedetrraL the ddreofhhdeah. l R€piese.r Decedenr in ey and a hrgadon pendingpiorio Decedenfs dearlr RepEseft Decede.t ir hisarion aisjns ed a, b.,."". oul ol.Decedenfs u -' Defehdanls $hich inay J;::::_Tii":il^ XJ. "-".",,". The adDinisrraroi shoutd be appoinled penaneDr adnrtnrftLor puNrtu ro secroo lllAC) ofrhe Probsle code. WTJEREFORE, PREMISES CONSTDDR!]I), s IElllANlt: RIOS. ApptLcror hosn reque$s rhat Cihrion be issued as requifed by la,! aod thar appjtrallr be ]nxncdracty appornLed a Adoinishlor of Decedenf s esrllc. 'IdE LAN FrnM oF t.Lon PLLC RiocmndeCiLy, Texas 7s592 Tel (956) 261-t786 Ia\. (956)263 t75.l  ., +ILED | 0r1-0.tsl:M r,raY 2 8 20v1 IN TEE ESTATE OF $ TN TIIE C COURT s ARTEMO RIOS, s AT L^W Or s $ STARR COUNTY, TEXAS .A.PPLICATION TO DEIERM]NE TIEIRSHTP The folding ApPlidL STEPHAITIE Rro9 tumtuhes rh. toUowii€ inlnmuon I aRTEMIO RIoS ("D*edmtl djed on Novmb€! 30, 2013, at tlE aBE oI 39 h FaLon rieighb, StaE C@ty, T€s. 2, A D€p4dmt D4€d6(s 6tate ji Fndmg beioE Lhs ation uPon udd court c:]G Nd PR-1!r3, stJba tu th. Est4t of '(,tm to Rios Ii i' in tlE hst inssl ol rhe Estate ior L\e Courr b detemine who N rhe heirs and orny hei6 of the 3, Appliat claiN |o be the owr o! aI d a Paft or D(edstr Estak nE la5l Lhc {iigjls of t]le smial suty nubq ol 033 Tlt lst rlte digrs of hd Tdas Identin@tion cd.l de 16? 4 Th€ lrdo ed Fsid6.5 of all or Dfr€dent s heus, tlE relatioch]P oI eacl her b Ddedmi dd dE he intere* of Bre APPIidt and of each ol the hei6 in the EstaE of De.edstft d follosl ARTEMIO RIOS, JL Rjo Grdde Cirt, Td6 78s82 Shat of Real PmPeny Shd of Pqsn l PloP€rtY: Rio cdde Gry, TM 745e2 I. ttu eshkalAei D'c6l ^@ \  CAUSE NO, DC-13-9?l I{UGO AI,ANIZ JR., STEPIIANIE RIOS 6 IN TIIE DISTRICT COURT d ARTEMIO RIOS, JR, Ibdividurlly lnd s Oa h.U of ti. Esrar. of ARTEMIO RIOS, I Praintillr, s s $ s JOANN GONZAj f,Z md s TLAMES GONZAIEZ, s $ AND 38f' JUDICTAL DISTfuCT s MARIA MAGDAI,ENA FLORES, AS NEXT s FRIEND OF AIIfY DEL CARMEN RIOS, A s MINOR CHILD 5 rnletukoFPraintills $ I s 5 ANDERSON COLUMBIA COM}ANY, INc-, s I $ STANR COI,NTY, TEX,AS AGREED AMENDED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER Plointiflss InrePcnos, od Defendd! app.&.d dd alE d, dd rhe coun .nter.n the lollowiDg 1. Jury rel4tioFTri.l: octoberl9,2015 rr 9:00 a.m, 2, Dsign.tioborE p..t: aJ Plaintif*4nre no^; May8,20l5 3. I3,2015 18,2015 4, Daub.rt/Rob'.&r E€rrtbca (ir fteded): ffisr-?- mrs rt e:oo !.D.  May ll I0,2015 3, Fiul PFTrtrl Corlft.e PuBu@r lo T.R,C,P. # t66: Oclob.r 6. Arl Motiols n lihine sh,U h.6lcd dd h€.d ot 6nal rl. Tri.l Noteb@ks shall be incompli sth T R C,P, 166, irctudjns sFEiat srcNED AND ORjIER'ED ON rrtrS _Ld,y of _Eq 2015. LAPFAE&! S,P.L.L.C. 601 Sa$ter StsEt, Suit€ 650 !d: (713)?3910r5 lreiLhab@iohs.com chri{opt'q@oFzcjohB.@d Co Ploi.r't/ InENetur 0rl30/2dj.6 33Pl 4 AmmdnanrofPrudingr(Pllindfi)r Maylll0,20l5 b) Amendnenr ol Plc.dinss (Dcfqrdmo: Iuty6,20L5 5 rhrlPrsjl.i!lcoDterence Purruanrtd l.R.C.t,r td6 O.rober J 20ls .lc:00r,n. AllMoions in Linine lhdlbefileddd hddar 6Mt!Etri.L. T.tul Notabooks aE due No (2) wc.k befoe tinal Pe-TrL,l coo cie. Ti,rlNorebook sh'l b. in@mpliatrc w"h T R.C.P t66, inoludingsp@ial SICNED ORDERID ON THIS t0r5. THE I-AW FIAfi OF IIOR !, 700 N. Flora Srot Sufue E R o Cad! C'ty, Tdas ?3532 s, P.L.t-c Fax. (956) 263'1750 sun.650 ConNel lbr Ptaintilf / ln t  FIRM, PLLC (e5o 658.3t@ i (956) 66&8101 Kni( D, Willii S llo,2l64i5oo s 240?0854 , Suile 520 ' (2t4) 736.9t94  6l^",g,JX II{ TBE FITATE OF 9 I]t TIIE COIJ]\TY COIJRT AT LAW $ NRTEMIO RIOS, sor $ DECE I) 5 ARRCOt TY, TEXaS PETTTION IN INTERVENTION FOR DETERMINATION OF RICEr OF INEERITANCE tu of InhcdbiE wiL'r tbis Coun 6 e Brh of rhe d@6 ot Andio Rios CDenmr"), and psur to s4rion 2ol .052 of the Texa Bbld codc ed Espedily sbmi6 b llc cout lhc ! Sr@heir Rios ha filed e Applienon to Dclmidc iship in tlis &rion dd my b€ wid nolie ofihi! Pailion in htrmrion by sddin! o 6py ro hd adomcy, FIor E. FtoE, d700N no Sr., Sr., E, tuo Ctud. Cify, Texs 73532. Arcmio tuc, J. hs 6lcd o Ejvn of ldie olrhc ADpliQlion fil.d by scphmie tu6 fiemayt *nn rcd* ofrbis !.tirion ir ddon by endrng a 6py b his addcs, l33O GuddlulE Cnok, Rjo CEde City, TX 78582. Any rj6 (r b'niot lhbugh [d n*r 6cDd Mdir Masda]@ Flc ha fital a pcrirron inlnrdenlionofrlcApplidion shc m b€ 3@.d wjth no.i€ of riis p.rition in tnR{rion Mqi, Ailnua FloFs, is a cidcnr of Se Coury rno r6i at l?2 L4 bbs, Rio Gadc Ciry. TS5e2 hd ha ajdiciabtc lnr.Esr in rfit pftc..ding 6 rh. @hnon t.w wifc oa Aenio tu6 ridd E S Cou(y, Tq6, ud dicd incabre on or aboutNowmh.r lO, 2013. Thar Ais Court ha venue MdjuisdicLion oflhc nader b€@w De.€ie M donioitcd in To ttc howledge ofPeliLionq, lhc decedenL died intcsrat., lcavins no MI. u. Maie Adri@ Ftor B rtuIty otoift ro bc thc omd of sll or o pelt of D€c€ddrs Esre 6 shc B {'. cl@nt spos. of tf,e d4dhr ar rhc rinc of his denise orhe l]1u this Thc @s ed Esidd@s of 6tl .f Dc.dent s hm, thc Flsrio6hp of eeh hcir lo enr md lnc u!. nl.€r oi rhc Petilrond Md of @h of rhe hei6 in lhe EsEle of Deccddr dd t[e !!e i. r of rhc Pelirionu ed of @ch of Lhc i.i6 in rho Btob of D.c.de.r @ s Nme: Mdia Adrieo Florcs t72tat @ cit tuo GMdc Tx ?35a2 Relatioctupr omon law spow Sh@ofR@lPrcperty ll2 S ofP.6odlProp..tyi l/2 Nmc. Anehio tuos, J. AddEs- 1830 GDdslupc Circl., Rio cfld. city, Ts 73532 RclalioEhip: child Sh@ ofEs.Lp | 16 66% Sha of pson.l pEpertr: 16.66% Nm.: S hdi. Rios Add : l33O Gu.dalupe CiEl., Rio Gtudc Ciry, T.xa 73542 R.lationship: child SbeofFdpmperty: 16.66%  s ofFEoMl pFlcny: 16,66% tuo Cftrde City, TeE ?3532 She ofpcFobd pDpcrry: 16 66% D.cedent An.dio Rios w6 n@i.d by €nmon taw t Maio Adiida FtoM_ 1lle Cour! SeCoety, Texs. All knoM chndEn bon !o or odopted b, De@d hdc b€en lisred lsh kbq Euiagc ofDe€ldt na ben ln@d A! olllrcation for indeFld.At rdrinishrio! is p.nding bdor? C.Msdcrti.tu. ClE No B not n nc.t s a parry in trle adninisratior poc€dings. h de €mon la* sifc or dE deedeDt ed h4 slanding s d inEBr.! pdson wilt be ']|r !trc.lcd by lhc pob61c po6-di!gs. MnaA.Litu!Flo re norlroviden wib noli@ ofde pFbarc F*.dinss ed for good su. deircs ro r. . 6 d ;FE$.d pcmd bd b. on. of rh. De..dols heiE h lie pFb& pFecdrSs. PRAYER TOR RELIEI Th.t rhc Pctiriolq h aq@ of lne f&15 smeding lhis pelirion od slae lie rollowinEl Ttur Pdition r Equ6l rhis Cod ro Bi.w lnis i nLion md pdirion md sho d de  cou 6rd il !6r.r, ro cntcr llos ordc6 n.@s$ry ed dul6ri*d wirrl ardio{!siD@dridn & LiirioM slat6 tlEt sbc udcEllrd! rhlr by 6lDS ihis peufion ia I cdcnLion tor Pctitond cqu6B rhis Coun dcGtuiE od st hlish who is .nLidci ro dE disiibuhon oa Llrc Coun my d€n Int.denor Mda A Artemio Rios Estate FlorFloEs !lbd. May 13,2015 ar 1209 pM ro 's'rb€rto@s b€norarcon aw.com' ccr Nad a LA1 Oh Apdl 1si, lsenlboth ol you an emaitrequeslinq lenralNe tna dates so we coutd nnatze the Oocket Conrrol OrderrheJudgeinstructed!sloslbmilnrhsmaller.Isn@M6y13thand havenolEcevedacspons," from you. l am requesling one lasl lrhetnaldales n June lrcmyou so can gel lhis casescheduted tr tdont rcceive a esponse, l wjll subm l a Dmkd conlrolord€r wjlhoul you inpul hnk thavewaited tong enouqh Addrl'onally. yourdiscovery €sponses a€ ovedue Pl€ase atlow th's etecllon c corespondenc€ lo setoe as a Iomarcq*sl for€sponses by no lat€rlhan lhe end otlhebusiness day on Monday, May 13,2015 Lftdonot Eceive sad rcsponses I wilL be liling a Ntot on for conlempl and forsanclons. Tnank yN loryour prompt atlenl on 10 lhese malleF li\tt.\4).t LdLttr, knq.\tr^ 2nl| 4tl:t)it The Law Fim of Flor E. Flores, PLLC 7tl0 N.I.lorcs St., Stc. E tuo G.,nde (iio,'le$s 78581 'rer (956)263,1786 |ix: (956)263-1750 \ \ \. fflo.csla\ .com trlo.cnr(@goin.(,m  Fir€d:05111/2015 NTHEISTATEOF O NTHE COU\TI COURT s 5 ^T LAW s $ STAXR COUITTY, TEXAS TO TIIf, HONORABLE JUDCf, OF SAID COURT: coMES \Ow, STEPIId\IE RIOS, rhe Aptlicanr l. Lh s lcion, .nd Rques for a D..keLConrclConfeence, and in suppon dercotwtllsho$ unro lhis Cour fie fotlow'.e: Thh prc.ecdi4 h i conreied mader *heEby rhe Appliconr is seeking b be appoinled rcpresenorive of de Enate ol ARTEMIO RIOS. Applk.nr is lhc biological daugh@r ol ARTEMIO RIOS, dec&$d. MARIA ADRrA\A FloRtrs hd nled lnrd.dion dajmin! an ro b. de common LN wife of ARTE:VIIO RIOS, de.elsed I!,{RL{ ADRIA\A FLORES is STEPHAME RIOS e reprsenraLile ofAXTEMIO RIOS' 6Ee ThE maoerha be.n pendingsince Mry l,2011. Applimr STEPI{ANIE RIOS hd filcd , J!ry D.mand on ft. isiuc ofcommon lae ndiag! an,l dl plnns app.&ed for a heari.g in Uis man{ on Mrch 26, 201J. The Coln Or!i*e'i lhe panEs ro edr.r rnto a do.ker conml order and seL fte daner for dal. Since L\en. AppLhanr has madr requc$ for Trial dncs from lnr!frcnor's counsel and non hale been Applica fil.d awonsluldedh cNe on behallofher tarher,ARTtr}rIO RIOS. decs$d rdfie33l'Jud'cioLDudc!Cou(!^deidcsehserlorTdrlonOdobeil9,20l5.Thisnate. hsb.enconrinuedon..sdrhepsdiessillnorasreeroflothercontinusce thk hadshs ro b. (solv.d beforc rhe {rongfuL dedh kial. Allpanns, indudin8 lnredcnor II{RIA ADRUu\A FLORXS, h6 had sufficrcnr rime Lo ensase in di$ove!- ro finrLize rheprcbale mr(flandprcc.ed 1o rial on th. common Laq issue, which needs o be.esoLved b.forc ihew.onsfuLderfi cssepmceed! ro trial. AppL'chra$.dr dar 5 daJ_s h necesary o prcvent hinh  WEI.REIORE, PREnflSES CONSIDERED, STEPdANIE RIOS, Aptlrcml 8bd hrer for Tdal on rh. McriB, md for sny rd ,ll oAd Eli.f, ir lN or in .qunt o which R€pond. n.y b€ jdly en tl.d6. R6F.tflllt $bmille4 TS'L FM TqNR E. FLONES' OF TLLC 700 N FloG st, St E tuo CFndc CirY, TerG 73512 T.L(956)261_l?36 Fq: (95O 26r_ 1750 EFAiI: Bv, /gFLOR f,. FLORFI 9EBrgre4x!-9rs!8ucE I, Flor E Flor.., by cdiry $don lhis rtE!:!9 d.v of rue 2015 d de ad codt copv ]I!A.EMA!,I v!A-E!4Ae: VI-{ ELECTRONIC FILINCi TH' LAW OFTICE OF GILAERTO FAICON' PLIT McAIl.n, Tcxa 73501 )turvrJor ltuenent Mo'o A.lrino Ftotu! 1t!!!o8-E MBES-- ft ?Nr4t6t h tu tud.41d.dp Atq k@dd  IN TI1I ESTAT' O}' s IN TIII COU\ry COURT I AX,TEMIO fuOS, I s STAIR COU\TYi TEXAS OR'f,ROI AT'PLICANTIS MOTION TO COMPIL & FOR SAIVCTIONS . rhc Coun @nidcr.d App ir&r s Mor on ro Cohp.l& lor Sdflrcns. and aner rcviewing rhc pL*d'ncs and he ne arcu(hrotcouset. rhe coud noalhe opinion rhrl erd morion shoutd bc GIIANTED. The Coun ORDERS lnrsrenor MARIA ADRIA,\ A FLORi'SI L To P3) Applienr's dromey, FLor!. FtoEs, $e slm ofS7O0.m tor$endccsiq,otntjng 6i5 Morion b Compcl and tor Ssctions on b€hrtfofsTEplll-Vf, RroS. 2. To prcdue dcmenb h Appiitrl s Reqfs tor P,odu on of Deumens s,din five 15)&rsorr h€iis n s ddrcrorby 'h I To p.ovidc resp.nses oAppticdrs Re,]l66 fo.Disct6uEs wnhin five (5) dlts ota ,20r5. .1 To pmvide fs-..e6 F ]\ppticanfs FiNL s.r otlnLerosarnes drhin five (5) da': ofa hqi.g i. rhis msner or by ,2olj. Ihe coun fuihs oRDERS and mks a Jud'c al findins rhar |ne Admissions *ru.d uno lnrdenor 34 dc.md adhiftd ,nd pEvenr tfledenor tdm presenunc evidcnce ar trnt which conftr.tr nane6 *hich have be€n dehedadmined. The Coun tunher ORDERS dal: l. Thel cfrcnor r plead in8s be nnck n and LeminoB dny fuans d G.overy b) tncdqor 2. Prchrbir lnrencnor Fom iilFdrcing &y documen6 d dd shich reE equen.d jn dtrcovq- and noL pnnued.  CAUSE NO. PR.I+I6 IIi T}IX ISTATE OF s I\ TEf, COUNTY COURT $ s ! $ STAITR COU\TY, TXXAS ORDIRON A}PLIC{XT'S MOITON I COVPIL& FOR sANCTIONS rhe coln lon'derd qppti!&,3 \ronon b Compeia lor Sandionl' and sner rcvic*idg LhepteadinCs and hlanDgarsmenrofcounset. ge CounEofd. opinron thar said hodon shautd b. TXD C Thr coln ORDERS tnredenor MARIA ADRIAT\A ILORXSI L rop3) Appliqfsadomcy, FtorE. FtoEs, dcsuD of$700 i]O a.! rh. ieesiryotnting Morjon b compet and for soc ons on behalfoa 'nh sl uHs^rx Rros. ?. loproduedocMcnb inAppt,.das Rcqusr Iof pnrdua,on or Docunenawj$in fivc T5)&y\ofr heJnng h dris mJnerorby I To pmvide rcsponses b Appliqm s Requcsb tor Dn.lo:ns wd d tjve (5) dals ofa 4 To pmvide ssqcE @ apptrsnrs tri^r ser oa Incnogmrjes hannsin rhis h,n{ or by The coutr tud\er oItDERs aid maks , ,!dic,l finding rhd dc Admjssions ed unro fcruenor aE demen admrd.d and prve tikdcnor rdm prc*nhnB evidencc d oiat qhich controv.e manen shih hrvc been deem.,l adniien The coln tuahd ORDERS rar. L T]1e Inroenots pteadings h€ erick.n dd r.minatcs dy 6fner djsoverl by rnbn.nor 2. PrchibiL tnuo-e'or trom inhduc,ng my deudenE ar ,nd shhh *eE Equsred in oKovery od norprcdued SICNEDON: JUDCE  CAUSENO, I]Y TIIE ESTATE OF t ARTEItroRtoq I - : arlAw S STARR COTA"TY, TP,JTAS Do.td Contror , rhe cou .dnsid..cd Appt,canas Conlecne. Mo.ion b ft. coud s* mrq Julv 23, 2o1s 'nis aor a he atinE dn 6/122015 s,cNrDon .1l5PLLC  .,+.t:; , AUG 2 0 2015 CAUSENO PIt-\,.l. \rp Cl.r" + i"q* SIARRCOTNry,IE).AS DOC]GT CONTROL ORDER BE REMEMBERiD lnAI ON dryol 201i, ad€kd JurlTialreqEied Yes B. I)ead ine ro rcqlen foflury: n.a..:,erio. In.l q oO >.d { Pre.Tral6 eEn.e i5 ser for (Prrr3 Nokbd rmadbo) E. The dadhne to'fitingaLl disposit' The coun will $hedule o hariig oi eid moion, upod de filng df tre. Thededhne forfitiiS: td sposit'\e ,u,nn,D morions herngon e'd morionsupon lhe fihng The deadhne for dcngnarion of expen * ni$ses tor D€fendmt G) ,,. rV'f l H. The deadL'ne lor desigration ol expen vM6scs lor PlaintifG) is TftCP The dead ,ne ror !omplerion ofdi*o\err for DdcnLlrnr (r) trr TNI P The dsd 'tu ror (ompletion ofdb6v!.J rorPtamtifi(,1L [4tp Ih" dtudL'r forn".dnr .or atlp'e.o ng. o hrn frno.nr\.rj 7-7C P L. -hedm.'oe ro' amenomel .Irllpl""dns.forh"Ps" r causE No. PR'14-015 s s s s DECEASED s STARR COUNTY, TEXAS AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENTTO TAKE THE VIDEO AND/OR OTLAL DEPOSITION OF SIEPHANIE RIOS STEPHANIE RIOS, Plamtiii. by and thrclgh hef allomeyolrecord, Flor E. Floes. 700 N. Flores Streel. Ste E Rio Grande CiV T€x€s 74542 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE thal ihe Vrdeo and/or Oral oeposnion of STEPHANIE RIOS wiLl be taken pu6uanl io the prcv sions of Ru es 200 and 201 Iexas Ru es of Ovil Proc€dure al Law oftice of Roel "Robie F ofes 3331 N. Wa€ Rd MoAllen, Texas 78501 Respondenl In lhe abore captioned cals€ will lake the Video and/or OEL Deposilion oI STEPHANIE RIOS, on conlinu ng day to day unlilcompleted. It he€by reqlesled lhat the Plaintfl, S'EPHANIE Rlos appea. in such trme a nd s place lorthe purpose ofgMng h6 depos tion in this cause, Mlich depos ton when laken may be lsed in €vidence dunng ihe t.ialof said cause, and wilconlinue from dav to day Respectfuly submitled The Frm ofRoe "RobE" Fores (956) 631-7188 ofllce Emarl: @bieiorcslaw@alt.net Hon. Ro€l'Robie Flores srare BarNo 07167020 AIIoTney Io. MARIA ADRIANA FLORES rJob ruober ?616r 6000!  Certificate of Service I ceR'ry thal a 1ru6 @py of the AJITIENDED NollCE oF INTENT TO TAKE THE VIDEO AND,OR ORAL OEPOSITIoN OF STEPHANIE RIOS was seded on bv hand delivery, by fa6imile, or by email, bv @nified mai retum Eceipt €quesled each anom6v oi€cord or nyin aeodancewithlhe Texas Rules or Ovrl Pbc€durc on lhegldav Flor E Flores 7o0 N Flores st@t Ste E Rio G€nde city, Texas 78532 Fa* 956,263.1750 Emarl:tfl oeslaw@gmail com Gilbeno Falcon ^ Faxi(956)487-6336 Email:€neonandoqaza@gmail com Ho.. Roel 'Robte" Flores Atlomey lor MARIA AoRIANA FLORES r rob Nube. 7633r ao00e  SUBPOENA DIJCES TECUM TO THE DEPOSITION OF STEPHANIE RIOS (EXHlBllA ) The term !o!'or 'deponent rele6lo STEPHANIE RIOS Ljnl€ss( othee se specined the I'me w thin whLch maleials are soughl s the past len I0) vears Trelcms docur€rt! wr'lhos ano records ateu'sInl| s'rhibil r" lhen l:sromarr o-oaa .ense ano w lour limiraloa rhe lollowng lems '€odrdless of 'n.lloed ongm orlo€lion, whether prnred, re@rded, rilmed, or feprcduced bvanvoLher mechanica prccess or wnnen or poduced by h.nd whelher or nol clarded to be pdvieqed aga nst discovery on anyground, and whelhefan onsrnal master or copv writt€n or Recorded stat€menl ofthe Pa.tv Proboundino lhissubb@na padY C-!.99€ !e!r!!4! any.nd a I slalements prevously made by lhe p@poundrng this subpoena duces lecum concernng the subject matler ol lhis lawsuit whch is n tha possession, cuslody, orco.tro lhe party lo *hom this subooena is drected ( Rlle 166b.2.q.). Forthe plrpose ollhE request. a sralemenl previous y hade is (a) a wrtten peBon makng . (b) a stenogfaphic mechani€|, eleclncalorother type ol r€codirq. or any t€nscriplion theeol which is a substani a ly velballm rec talof a slalement made bv lhe pe6on and contemDo€neo!slv recorded Photoaraphs: Each and every photogEph in vour possesslof orslbject lo vour @ntol and or dlv tqllve or anv'L'r pfolog aon '''prrl he€o'rsroi :vaibole $ nrch oeoicls r"ne6 €le rs 1l Io lh6 lawsJ I Fo'fepuDo+sorlhis subpoena, lhe lerm photograph would include the video pornon oi anv mouon pElue. vdeo-lape, or other recorded medra 3. Pr€oaration forthis d€.osition: any and all documenls, repons pape6 coresponden@, pholog€phs. and nemoranda e thef i. vour possessron or lnder yolr conlo re atrng lo lhe occlren@ mad€ the basis of thrs lamlit p'epared or reviewed pnorto lhis depos't'on In preparatDn lor ih s dePosition a copy ofyour curenl driver's rcense 5 Reports ofErpe.ts: Any and aildocuments and langible thrngs ncluding all lanqrble repofts, physi€lmodels, complications oi data, and olhermalenal prepared by an expeftwho may be called as a. etp€Ls lrialor deposilion i€siimony, and anysuch marenalprepared bv an expert used ror consullaron lnvestioator's Reports: The nafre a reDorts ofany private lnvesliqato6 empioved bvvou in @nn€c1ion witlr lhs ese a Panies and wltn€sses: The names and addfesses ol anvpotenla partiesor witness€s lhatcan be oblained ffom any comfrunication orolher papeB In you possess on, custody, of conlol LrqD .rb-A.76d6r 6ooro  causE No. PR-la-016 IN THE ESTATE OF 5 IN COUNTY COURT s s s DECEASEO s STARR COUNTY, TEXAS AMENOED NOIICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE VIDEO AND/OR ORAL OEPOSITION OF ARTEMIO RIOS JR, ARTEMIO RIOS JR., P ainLitr. by and lhDugh her altornev ol record, Flot E Floes 700 N. Flor€s steet Ste E Rio Grande Ctv T€ss 74542. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE thatlhe Video and/or 016l Deposition oIARTEMIO RIOS JR. wil be taken purslanl lo the p@vsrons of Rlles 200 and 20r, Texas Rules oi Civil Prcced uE at Law otfice of Roel 'Robie Flores 3331 N. ward Rd McA len T€xas 74501 . Respondent i. the above caploned €usewilltake the Video andlor Oral Deposition of ARTEMIO RIOSJR,, on Nd ontrnurng day lo day untl@mpleted ll is hereby requesled lhal the Pantifl, ARTEMIo Rlos JR appearln such time and plaG for$e purpos6 ofgiving his deposilion in thrs cause, which deposition when taken, maybe used in evidence dunng the tdalolsaid cause, and willconlinue tom dav Respecif ully s!bm'lted, The Fkm of R@l"Rob e'Flores (9s6) 631-7133 Oifce Ems r obienoeslaw@att.net Hon Roel'Robre' Flores stale Bar No 07167020 Atlomey IoT MARIA ADFIANA FLORES r hh \uober 7636r o0002  Certificare of SeNice | @nfy lhai a lru€ @py ofine AMENDEO NOTTCE OF TNTENT TO TAXE THE VIDEO ANO/OR ORAL oEpOStTtON OF ARTEM|o R|OS JR, s serued on by hand delivery, bylaFimile, or byemai, by ceriified m.it, return re4ipl r€quested each anomey or re@rd orparty 'n a@rdan@ with lh€ TeEs Rltes otCMtprocedue on ther4day Flor E. Ftores 700 N FroEs Sreel Ste E RD Grande CiV, Tess ?85S2 Fak 956.263.1750 Email:filoedaw@gmait.com Rene ca@ Gilberto Far@n ^ Faxr(956x€7 6336 Emarl:reneodandogaa@smait.@m nz ru," lz,-- Hon. Ro6l "Robie' Flores Atlomey tor MARIA ADRIANA FLORES rrob Nuber zi!6r Amol  SUBPOENA DUCES'TECUM TOTHE OEPOSITION OF ARTEMIO RIOS JR- IEXHIBIT "A"I Thetem yo! or'deponeni releb to ARTEIT/I|O RIOS JR., Untess otheMise speciiied lhe lrhe wilhin which malerials a€ sought is the past ten O0) yea.s. The tems document. 'w llngs."afd ,lecords'aE used rn this exhrb rn lher clsloharyb.o.d sense and Inclldedwrthout rmtalon rhe following ilems. regad ess of onqin or localion, wheihef printed, recoded nlmed, orrepbduced by anyothe. mechanica pD@ss or winen or podlc€d bV hand whelher or not claimed io be pnvileg€d aoanstdFcoveryo. anygDund, andwhetheranonojnal, mast€r,o.@py. Writt.n orRecorded Stalenontoflh€ Partv Proooundin. this subboena ducos lecum: Anyand alslatemenls pfeviously hade by lh6 pa popoundrng lhis slbpoena dues tecum concemrng lhe sublst natteroflhis lawsurl which is inlhe possession, coslody ordnto the parly to whom this subpoena sdirected. (Rule 166b.2.9.). Forrhe purpose ofths requesi, a slalement prevjously made is (a) a wnften pe6on making [ (b) a stenographc mechanica, electrca or oth6r lype of recording. o.any lEnscnp on theeol whch is€ slbslanlrally verbal m Gcita ofa statement made by the pe6on a.d contem@.ansuslv r*oded. 2. Phoroor.ohs: Each and every pholograph in yolrpossession of subtedr to your conl.ol, and/o. any negat ve ol any slch photograph, f€ pnnt thereofrsnot avai able, $h .h depicts mallers elevant to this lawslrl. For lhe purposes of rhis subpoena, the term photograph would hclude lh€ vdeo poftion of any dolioo pictlre, video-lape, or olher recorded media. 3 Prcbaration for this d€position: Any and alldoc!nents. reporls, p6pe6, @respondence, photographs, and memoanda, either r your possessionor under your contrclrelatng 1o the occuren.e made the basis oilh's laclit, p€pa€d or eviewed prjor to thE depostrion in pepaElion for this deposition. Orivei's License: A copy or your cutrenL dnveas lrcense 5 Rebo.is ofErp6rrs: Any and alldocuments and tafgblethings, ncLudrnq all tangible reporis, physica models. comphcalions oldata and other material prepaEd by an expen who may be.aled as an etperl's lrial or deposil on teslimony and anysuch malenalprepared byan €xpert used for.onsuhalion (even rf rt was prepared n anticipaL on of litigal on of lof lnar) the @nsuri ng expens opinions or impressrons have been €v ewed by a testitl.g expen. Invslioator's Reoorrs: The name addesses, telephone n!hbe6, and replris olanyp.ivate inveslgators empoyed byyou n conneclronwrlh this case. P.rties and Witnesses: The names and add.esses oI any potentiaL panies or w nesses that can be obtained iiom any communrcal@n orother papec In you possess on, custodv, or conrrol rrob lulber 7o36r b0oo4  I!11 5ik > causE No, PR-t+016 IN THE ESTATE OF s IN COUNTY COURT s ARTEMIO RIOS, s DECEASEO 5 STARR COUNTY, TEXAS AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENTTO TAKE THE VIDEO AND/ORORAL DEPOSITION OF HUGO ALANIZ JR. To: HUGO ALANIZ JR,, P aintiff, by and lhrouqh her adomey of r*ord, Flor E. Flores 700 N. Flores Slreel, sle E Rio Grande cV. TeEs 74542 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE lhatlhe Vldeo and/or O€lOeposition ot HUGO ALANIZ JR. wlLlbe t ken DuBuanl lo lhe Drcvisions or Rures 2Oo and 201 Texas RuLes of CivI Pocedu€ at Law office of Roel Robie' Flores 3331 N Ware Rd, McA len, TeEs 78501 . R€spond€nt in the above captloned @usewilllake the Vids and/o. o€lo€posilion of HUGO AI.ANIZ JR,, on nd @ntinuing day lo day unlilcomplel llishe€by.equested thatlhe Plarntrfi, HUGo ALANIZ JR, appearinsuch timeand placeiorthe purpose ofgiving his depos tion in thrs cause, wh ch depos tion, when taken, may be lsed in evidenc6 du.ing the l al ot said cause and will contrnue frcm day to day Respecttutly subm(ed, The Fim of R@l'Robre" Flores (956) 631-7188 office Eha'l: @b'efl o€slaw@an.nel srare Ba. No. 07167020 Anomey for MARIA ADRIANA FLORES lrob Nubcr 76a6t 40005  Certificate ot Ssrvic. I ceniry thal a true @py olthe AMENOEO NOTICE OF INTENTTO TAKE tHE VIDEO AND/oR oRAL DEPOSITION OF HIJGo ALANIZ JR. was s€p€d on by hand delivery, byf.6rm e, orbyemail, byc€nined mail. relurn Ecelpt Equested each.ltom€y of r*od or party in a@rdanc6 wlth the Texas Rul6s of CMI Prccedure on the ay Flor E. Florcs 700 N Floes st€Et Ste E GEnde city, Texas 73532 Far 956 263.1750 Emaif flloreslas@gmail.@m Gibeno Fal@n ru - Fd: (956X€7$336 ., Emarl:enedandosa%@smd @m " /1-. Hon. Roel Robie" FloEs Aitoney ior MARIA AORIAIIA FLORES trdb rrbef 7r!61 60006  SUBPOENADUCES TECUM TO THE OEPOSITION OF HUGO ALANIZ JR. (EXHta[ "A) Th6 tem'you or'deponeft, reters to HUGoaL-ANtzJR., untess olheMise specrled rhe lime wrlhin which maieria s are suQhl is the past len (10) yea6. The lems'doclments 'writhgs and 're.ords' are lsed in rhis exhrb h rhei. customary broad s6nse€nd Inctlded withoul rmitation lhefollowing tems, relardtess of ongrn o. ocalron, whetherprlnt€d, E6rded, timed, or reprcdu.ed bya.yother mechanrcalpo@ss ofwrinen orp.odued by hand wherherornol claned to be pnvibged againsr dlscoveryon anyground. and whelh€. an ongina . master orcopy, WrlttenorR€cordedSt.tcmgntof theParrvprcpoundtnothtssub@ena popounding lhis subpoena d!c€s lecum @ncernrngthe subject maher of thts lareuil whEh is in lhe possessDn, custody, orconlrctrhe pany b whom thts subpoena 6 drccled (Rule 1 66b.2 g ). For the purpose of rhis feqlest , a statement previolsy hade B (a) a wriften peMn makins ir, (b). sienogEphic. mechanr€|. elech€lo. olher type of record nq , orany tEnscrpl on lherml which isa substantrally vedatim recrlatofa statement made bvLhe oe6on and 6nremporaneously ecorded. 2. Photoqralhsr Each and every pholosraph in yolrpossess@n orsubjecl ro yourcont@|, and/orany negative ol ahysu.h photogEph ta pnnt thefeof is not ava lable, which depcls matteF .elevanr lo this tawsu . For the olrNses of this s-bpoera. rre tem phoroq.aph *ortd n. rude.Fe r'deo Don on ol anv mol,on pcrlre, vdeo-laoe. orolher re@rded media. 3 prepaEtion forthls d6oosition: Anyand atdocufrents, repons, pape.s, @despondene phologEphs, and memoranda. eithe.rn youf oossesson o. under yolr @n!rc| relatrns lo the occurenc made rhe basts oflhis awsuit prepa Ed or €viewed pno. b lhis depos tion n preparat on lor lhis deposit on. Driver's License: A copy ofVo!r c!rent dnvers ti@nse R€po.ts ofExo.rts: Anyand altdocuments and tangjbte lhings. r.cludrng all langiblereports, physi€l models,@mpticauonsordala,and othermalerial prepared by an erpen who may be called as an experl s kiator deposirion teslrmony. and anysuch materiat prepared by a. expe.l lsed forconsuttation (even if it was prepar€d in anlicipaton ot ftgaUon or lor tnaD it rhe @nsuttrng e4ens oprnons or mp€ssions have beeh r€viewed by a tesiitrng expert. Inv€stidalo.'s Reports: The name, add16sses, letephone numbe6, and repons or any pnvale invesligatoG employed by you In connectio. wrth lhrs €se I Parti€s and Witn6ss€s: The names and add.esses otany porenti€tDartes or witnesses lhat can be oblain€d iiom any communicatof or possess on custooy, or conlrcl rrob ,ube, ?3e6r @0dd7  + A(a181tb causE No. PR-14016 IN THE ESTATE OF 6 IN COUNTYCOURT s ARTEMIO RIOS, s s DECEASED s STARR COUNTY, TEXAS IMOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO THE HONORABLE JIJDGE OF SAID COURT: This MoTroN FoR CoNTTNUANCE is brought by ROEL ROSTE FLORES, Movant, on b6half ol MARIA AORIANA FLORES. In supporl olsad motion, Mo€n( I. Th6 case is pres€ntly sel for a hea.ing on September 1,2015, al9:00 a.m. in SlaE Counly, Texas. 2. Movanl, co!.sel has prevrously noticed the opposing parlies in this ese, and theylmpEpenyquash€d the deposillon, argurng lhey had b*n depose even though they were not deposed in lhis €se- Inaddiion, deposition are schedlled forSeptember l,2015 atS.00 6.m,10:30a.m. and 1.30 p.m. 3. Movant!motonforconlrnuance6nolsoughlsolelyfordelaybd that justice Movant p.a/srhe co-n granl rhe roi on lorconrnuan.e be qrarled. R6sp6.lfully submlned, FLORES ATTORNEYS AT LAW Toi (e5€)631-7r€3 orficd Fax {es6) 6s1 7263 Fax 07167420 rrob Nurber r66dr 6ooor  SaEh W. Flores stal€ Ba. No 24045340 Attom€ys for MARIA ADRIANA FLORES CERTIFICATEIESE8!4CE I enit ihar a ttue and @rect copy of lh€ roresoins l!!!tf:!olIoBleo!!MlA!:leE has be€n etued by hand dolivory, by lacsimlle, or by cedlne! mall, relum r@ipl requesled, on lhis rhe dayorAugust, 2015 on the following: 700 N Frores slre€i Sle E Rio Gcnde City, IeEs 74532 Email;flloresla hall.@h Far (956)4875336 EmailrEner andoga@@ghail.@m lJob 7668t 6000! ^ub.r STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF HIDALGO BEFORE ME, the undeFigned aurhority, petunaly appeaGd R@t " Robje" Bora , wllo, by he duly h, deposed asto tomi "My name is ROEL "ROB|E' FLORES, , am a ltcnEed anorney in the Slare or Texas and I am h€reby acquainted with the facts siated In the Motion tor Coniinuan€ | heeby state that the racrs h the Motion lor Continlan€ ae true and corect to th€ besr sisned on Ausud/2, 201s. ROEL 'ROBIE' FLORES Slgn€d under oarh b€foe me lrob Nukf 766r) 60oos  causE No, PR-1rt.016 IN THE ESTATE OF s tN colrNw 5 ARTEMIO RIOS, s DECEASED s STARR COUNTY. TEXAS ORDER ON MOTION FOR CONIINUANCE ,2015, rhe Louil @nsdered tle Motor torconnnLance ol MARIA ADRIANA FLORES. Movani andordeB:thal lhis Mouon is GRANTED and tT lsTHEREFOREOROEREDth6lrheheanng is resetfol ,20r5, M 20r5. JUOGE PRESIDING .c Roel "Robi." Ftores Fai (s56) 631,726S Email rob efl orestaw@au.f et 700 N FtoesStE€l ste E Rio Gr.nde City, Texas 78562 Far 956.263.1750 EFail:mo@staw@gmart @m Far. (9s€)447-6336 Emarl.cneonandogau@gnait com rJob Nurb-r 7663r 6ooor  CAUSE NO IN THE ESTATE OF 5 s ARTEMIO RIOS, 5 s DECEASEO 5 TEXAS MOfION FOR CONiINUANCE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: This MOTIoN FoR CONTTNUANCE is brolght by ROEL ^RoatE" FLoRES, Movant, on behalf ot MARTA ADRTANA FIORES. In suppod ot sad mohon, Movant L This case 6 presenuy set for a Jury Tnal hea.ing on September 3 201 5 al 9:Oo a.m.In StarCounty, Texas. 2. Movant, counselhas lssued notEes ofdeposirion for rhe followrngw ness Stephanie Rios. Adenio Rlos, Jr . and Hugo Alanrz Jr. and are eheduted lor Seplember 1,2015 al9.00 a.m,10130 a h. and 1:30 p.m. 3 Movanl, counsel is requesting addrhona limeto prepared fortnal. 3 Movanlsmotonforconllnuanceisnoisoughlsot€tyfordetaybdthallustce Movanl p.als lhe @un grantthe motion lofoontinlance be granted R6sp6ctfuily submrtted FLORES ATTORN EYS AT LAW Ter: (e5€) 631 7133Oflrce Fax (s56)631-7263 Fax  BY: Sble AarNo.07167020 Sabh W. Floros srate Bar. No 24045340 Anorneys for MARIA AORIANA FLORES CERIIFICATE OF SERVICE l@nifylhai airueand corecl@pyof lh€ fofego ng MOTION FORCONNNUANCE has b€en eNed by hand deliv€ry, by facslmie, or by certili€d mail, €turn €ceipt Eque(ed. on rhis lhe Al day orAugusl, 2015 on the followinq: 700 N Flor6 Slr6etSle E Rio GBnde Cay T.xas 78582 Emairfiloreslaw@ghail.6h Ehailx€neorlandosa%@shail.com rJdb Nurber 7313r 40003 STA]E OF TEXAS COUNTY OF HIDALGO BEFORE ME the undgr€igned autho.ity, peBonat/yappeaed Roei. Robie" Ftores , wlro, bym€ duly m, deposed as folowsi 'My name is ROEL "ROBTE FLORES, I am a ti@nsed ailorney in rhe siaie of TeB and | .m her€by acquainied $th th€ facts staled in the Moflon for Continuan@. I hereby stale lhal th6 f6cts n th6 Motion tor continuan@ a.€ true and 6red to the b€st Siqred on Aususl ,2015. ROEL'ROBIE" FLORES Sjgned under oath beto€ me  IN THE ESTATE OF IN COUNTY COURT 5 ARTE |o RIOS, 5 DECEASED s 5 STARR COUNTY, TEXAS N MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE 2015. rhe coun consid€red lh€ Molron forcontrnuance ol llrARlA ADRtAitA FLORES, MovanL and odeEi thal rhrs Motjon is GRANTED and tT lS IHEREFORE ORDEREDtha hehea.ing is €ser.o- 201s, SIGNED ON 2015. JUDGE PRESIDING F i(956)631-726S Email bbi€f torestawasl.,ner 70O N Flor€s StE€r Ste E Rio cEnde Chy, Teras 7OSS2 En|ail;no.€sraw@gmait.com Ehair:reneonandogau @qm.it @m rJob Nubsf 76d3t odoro  Filed: 8/31/2015 10:45:48 AM Dennis D. Gonzalez County Clerk Starr County, Texas Lilly Guerrero CAUSE NO. PR-14-016 IN THE ESTATE OF § IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW § ARTEMIO RIOS, § SITTING AS A PROBATE COURT § DECEASED § STARR COUNTY, TEXAS APPLICANT’S RESPONSE & OBJECTION TO INTERVENOR’S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Applicant STEPHANIE RIOS, and files this Response and Objection to Intervenor’s Motion for Continuance, and in support thereof will show unto this Court as follows: I. Procedural History On May 1, 2014, Applicant STEPHANIE RIOS filed an Application for Appointment of Dependent Administrator in this Court under Cause No. PR-14-013, styled In the Estate of Artemio Rios on May 1, 2014. See attached Exhibit “A.” On May 28, 2014, Applicant further filed in this Court an Application to Determine Heirship under Cause No. PR-14-016, styled In the Estate of Artemio Rios. See attached Exhibit “B.” Applicant STEPHANIE RIOS was Artemio Rios, Decedent’s, biological daughter. See attached Exhibit “C.” On August 1, 2014, Intervenor MARIA ADRIANA FLORES filed a Petition in Intervention for Determination of Right of Inheritance and an Opposition to Application for Letters of Administration both under Cause No. PR-14-016. See Exhibits “D” and “E.” These matter has been set for a hearing on the following dates since Intervenor’s filing of her Petition in Intervention: January 15, 2015; February 19, 2015; March 19, 2015; and March 26, 2015. Applicant was prepared to proceed on the Appointment of Administrator and Determination of Heirship, and all hearings were reset at Intervenor’s oral and/or written Motions for Continuance, and all over Applicant’s objections. The hearing on March 26, 2015 was set by the Court to proceed with all pending matters. Intervenor again made a request for a reset and the Court granted said request, also over Applicant’s objection. At that hearing, Court instructed the parties to enter into a Docket Control Order and set the case for Trial. Applicant made attempts to confer with Intervenor’s counsel to select a trial date and enter into a Docket Control Order. See attached Exhibits “F” and “G.” Intervenor’s counsel never responded to said requests.  Consequently, Applicant filed a Motion for Docket Control Order on June 10, 2015 and said motion was set for a hearing on August 20, 2015. A Docket Control Order, setting this case for a Special Trial on September 3, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. was signed by all counsel of record and by this Honorable Court. See attached Exhibit “H.” Said Docket Control Order dictate the deadlines in this case. During the time of the filing of the Intervention and the signing of the Docket Control Order, Applicant engaged in discovery, as Applicant disputes Intervenor’s claim that she was Decedent’s common law wife. Applicant served Intervenor with Requests for Disclosures, First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Requests for Production. See attached Exhibit “I.” Due to Intervenor’s failure to timely respond to said discovery, Applicant filed a Motion to Compel and for Sanctions and Intervenor was ordered to respond to the discovery by July 30, 2015. In her discovery responses, Intervenor for the first time identified several witnesses who allegedly have knowledge of the common law marriage. Applicant immediately requested and by agreement, obtained dates to depose and later deposed three witnesses and Intervenor. See attached Exhibit “J.” During the same period of time between the filing of her Petition in Intervention and the signing of the Docket Control Order, Intervenor has engaged in zero (0) discovery. Now, days before the Trial, Intervenor has attempted to Notice Depositions of Applicant and her sibling, and a non-party. Intervenor attempts to notice depositions outside the discovery period and improperly served the notice on the non-party. In her Motion for Continuance Intervenor alleges that “counsel has previously noticed the opposing parties in this case, and they improperly quashed the depositions, arguing they had been deposed even though they were not deposed in this case.” Intervenor’s statements are incorrect as the only depositions previously quashed were those noticed in Cause No. DC-13-971, not in PR-14-013 or PR-14-016. Applicant filed her first Motion to Quash in this case on August 28, 2015 on the ground that said depositions were noticed after the discovery deadline had passed but also because Intervenor failed to come to an agreement on taking of depositions, improperly noticing the deposition of a non-party, and failing to meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure in scheduling depositions. Prior to the above-referenced filings, Applicant STEPHANIE RIOS filed a wrongful death suit in the 381st Judicial District Court under Cause No. DC-13-971, styled Hugo Alaniz, et al v. Anderson Columbia, individually and on behalf of her father, ARTEMIO RIOS’ estate. The lawsuit was filed within thirty (30) days of the death of ARTEMIO RIOS, Applicant’s father. That case was set for trial and a continuance was granted. It was later reset, and Trial is currently for October 19, 2015. See attached Exhibit K.” The parties in that suit have engaged in extensive discovery, including the taking of many depositions of witnesses and experts. The parties intend to proceed to Mediation in late September 2015, as per the last discussions between the parties’ attorneys. Intervenor MARIA ADRIANA FLORES filed an Intervention but her Intervention was stricken upon Defendant’s Motion to Strike. Although having been in that case for almost a year, Intervenor engaged in little to no discovery in that case and failed to participate in any of the depositions taken to date. Any further delay before this Court will cause extreme prejudice to Applicant, as the parties are preparing for mediation and trial in the wrongful death suit and must dispose of the common law marriage dispute and obtain the administration of the estate of Decedent prior to mediation and Trial in the wrongful death suit. II. Response & Objection to a Continuance “It is well established that the granting or denial of a motion for continuance is within the trial court’s sound discretion.” Villegas v. Carter, 171 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tex. 1986); State v. Crank, 666 S.W.2d 91, 94 (Tex. 1984). “The exercise of discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless the record discloses a clear abuse of discretion.” Id. “It is also well established that the failure of a litigant to diligently utilize the rules of civil procedure for discovery purposes will not authorize the granting of a continuance.” Fritsch v. J.M. English Truck Line, Inc., 151 Tex. 168 (Tex. 1952). “A trial court will not be required to grant a motion for continuance, at the risk of committing error in overruling it, when the allegations in the motion examined in light of the record show beyond cavil a complete lack of diligence…” Id. at 858. “A party who does not diligently utilize the procedures for discovery can seldom claim reversible error when the trial court refuses a continuance.” State v. Wood Oil Distributing, Inc., 751 S.W.2d 863, 865 (Tex. 1988). Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 247 states that “[n]o cause which has been set upon the trial docket of the court shall be taken from the trial docket for the date set except by agreement of the parties or for good cause upon motion and notice to the opposing party.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 247; Tex. R. Civ. P. 251. The rules further state that “[t]he failure to obtain the deposition of any witness residing within 100 miles of the courthouse or the county in which the suit is pending shall not be regarded as want of diligence when diligence has been used to secure the personal attendance of such witness under the rules of law….” Tex. R. Civ. P. 252. Rule 252 further requires that “if a continuance is sought to depose a witness, the motion must include the following information: 1.) the witness’s name and address (street, county, and state of residence); and 2.) a description of the testimony the witness will probably give and what the party expects the testimony to prove. Id. Furthermore, in Wood, Wood asked for a continuance…to take depositions of the State’s witnesses. State v. Wood Oil Distrib., Inc., 751 S.W.2d 863 (Tex. 1988). Wood had not conducted discovery during the two years in which suit was pending. Id. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because Wood did not prove diligence. Id. The Court said that Wood’s inability…to take the deposition of State’s witnesses was ‘a predicament of its own making.’ Id. Like in Wood, Intervenor’s petition was filed over a year ago. During that period of time, Intervenor has failed to conduct any discovery. Now on the eve of trial, Intervenor attempts to notice depositions, after the discovery deadlines have passed, and without proving any due diligence in attempting to conduct discovery or procure depositions of the witnesses. Moreover, Intervenor’s motion for continuance is not in substantial compliance with the rules. Rule 252 requires that “when requesting additional time for discovery, a party must fulfill six requirements under oath: 1.) the testimony is material; 2.) proof of materiality; 3.) show of diligence; 4.) cause of failure, if known; 5.) evidence not available; 6.) continuance is not for delay only but so that justice be done. Tex. R. Civ. P. 252; Verkin v. SW Cent 1, 784 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. App. 1990). Intervenor’s counsel filed a motion for continuance and attached an affidavit to said motion. In his affidavit, Intervenor’s counsel simply states “I am hereby acquainted with the facts stated in the Motion for Continuance.” The motion itself states that “counsel has previously noticed the opposing parties in this case, and they improperly quashed the depositions…” It further states that “depositions are scheduled for September 1, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.; 10:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m.” Applicant contends that Intervenor failed to comply with Rule 252 in that she has completely failed to show any diligence in obtaining depositions within the year that her intervention has been pending; has failed to completely state a cause for her failure to do so; has failed to show that evidence was not available during that year; and has failed to show how her request for a continuance is for anything other than to delay the case and cause prejudice to Applicant. Intervenor has further failed to state in her motion for continuance “the type of information sought” in the depositions she attempts to notice. Gabaldon v. General Motors Corp., 876 S.W.2d 367, 370 (Tex.App.—El Paso, 1993, no writ). Intervenor’s motion for continuance also fails to state that the discovery period has expired.  Intervenor’s motion for continuance is devoid of any showing of due diligence in procuring depositions of witnesses in this case. In fact, Intervenor has failed to satisfy the requirement and describe the attempts she has made in a period of one (1) year to secure discovery of evidence. Applicant STEPHANIE RIOS will be prejudiced with the granting of a continuance in this case. Applicant is preparing her wrongful death suit for mediation in September 2015 and Trial in October 2015. The delaying of this case will prevent mediation and trial to proceed in her wrongful death suit. Intervenor has had more than sufficient time to conduct discovery and obtain evidence to prove her alleged claim of common law and has failed to do so. Applicant has diligently conducted discovery, secured evidence, and procured witnesses to dispute Intervenor’s alleged claim of common law marriage to Applicant’s deceased father while Intervenor has caused nothing but delays in these proceedings. III. Prayer WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Applicant STEPHANIE RIOS, ask this Court to deny Intervenor MARIA ADRIANA FLORES’ motion for continuance, and for such other and further relief to which Applicant may be justly entitled to, in law or in equity. Respectfully Submitted, THE LAW FIRM OF FLOR E. FLORES, PLLC 700 N. Flores St. Rio Grande City, Texas 78582 Tel. (956)263-1786 Fax. (956)263-1750 Email: ffloreslaw@gmail.com BY: /S/FLOR E. FLORES Flor E. Flores State Bar No. 24065235 Counsel for Applicant Stephanie Rios LAPEZE & JOHNS, PLLC 601 Sawyer Street, Ste. 650 Houston, Texas 77007 Tel: (713)739-1010 Fax: (713)739-1015 Email: chris@lapezejohns.com BY: /S/CHRIS K. JOHNS Chris K. Johns State Bar No. 24002353 Co-Counsel for Applicant Stephanie Rios  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Flor E. Flores, hereby certify that on this the 31st day of August, 2015, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Applicant’s Response & Objection to Intervenor’s Motion for Continuance, has been upon all parties of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. VIA ELECTRONIC FILING VIA EMAIL: gilberto@gilbertofalconlaw.com Gilberto Falcon THE LAW OFFICE OF GILBERTO FALCON, PLLC 320 Lindberg Ave. McAllen, Texas 78501 Attorney for Intervenor VIA ELECTRONIC FILING VIA EMAIL: robieflores@att.net Roel “Robie” Flores FLORES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3331 N. Ware Rd. McAllen, Texas 78501 Attorney for Intervenor VIA ELECTRONIC FILING VIA EMAIL: garzalawoffice@aol.com Minerva Garza THE LAW OFFICE OF BALDEMAR GARZA & MINERVA GARZA 200 E. Second St. Rio Grande City, Texas 78582 Attorney Ad Litem /S/FLOR E. FLORES FLOR E. FLORES  LBEoruro-/* l .AUSE No. fl '* [L/^e I DENNI$ nv' Ai]n c0. TX iIN'THE IIS]'A'|E O}' 6 u, couv2:$ RT n ARTE1WIO ruOS. E AT woF $ Deceosed R STA COI]NTY. TE.XAS .A"PPI,IC.4, FOR INTMB OFD NDENT ADMI]:{IST TO TIilE HO,NORAI]]LE JIJDGE OF COURT coi'{Es NO\4/, STEPITANIE LEE RIOS. A icant, and files tliis A lication for Approiirtnir:rLt o1'Depe.'rlerit Administrator of the Estate o RTEIVIIO RtrOIi, Dec ased. and for icar-rse rrr\. fnltn*,i... of actLon vlill show unto this CoultI rlrc r.vtrvYYlllE;. tJ, i i l^ I Appirc;ant is an individr,ral domiciled in and resid at 1830 Guadalupe S , Rio Grande 1^' , .ir Ulty, lexas 78582, Starr County, Texas, and is acting i this matter by and tlt Lrgh heL duly .r I authorlzed rel)resentatir/e, Tlie applicant is the c'leceden daLrghtel and hzrs ar.r terest in the iestate of AR.TEItdIOT R.IOS, Deceaseci. il. i Derre'dent die,J on November 30,2013 in Rio Gra : City, Stalr County, Te[as at the age iof 39 yearsr, T'he decedent died inrestate. I ilL I This Cour:t ha.s jr.rrisdiction and veltlle is pr.oper. be .rse A|I'REMIO liiXOS lDeceased was at the tine of deiith in CoLrnty. I ltaru I IV, I Deoedr:nt owned. property described generally as I propelty with an unkr]own value at the time of filing this appiication. ' Decedent owned property describecl generally a rersonai propertl, ovitfr lan unknown value ait the tirne of filing this application, l I Apftlicant, on behalf of Decedent, frleci a vwoltg cleath sLrit clui.e,ntly nincling rinder Cause No, trCl-l '.)-g71, in the 381,r J'dicial District CoL, Stalr Cor,rnty, Te> R 1r Wed, Apr 1,2015 at 1:56 PM issue of a common law marriage. At the last Order and set altrial date. I spoke with Chico .I am getting ready to prepare the Order and the trial may itake at lerast two days since. I N. $lores lSt., gte, .[i https//mqil.go4le.$om/nrail/u/0/?r.li=lgik:=6'i'00a43108&view=pt&q=in%3Asent%20gi .com &qs= true&search= query&th = I 4c765T e50... | I 1  8130t2015 Gmait - Artemio rstate {i{s fl"$*l L*Flffi,.- i,,t i'.trojiju: ' li $ Ii i FrorFtores l; ArtbmioiRios 1 mQssag;e Eistat,e I ] ] Flor iFloresi . Cc: Nadia LA1 .:floreslawassist0l@gmail.comr i l Gilbr-'rto, Amber: I li Oril\pril 1st, I sent both of vou an email requesting tentative tri[{ dates so we could finalize the Docket Control ordelrtlrerJudger instrtrctr:cl t.ts to submit in this malter. lt is novr{'l'rry ,3th and I have not received a response from you' I ant tequersting one last time trial dates in June tromldou'so r can get this case scheduled, lf I don,t reoeive a resp'onse, I willl r;urbmit a Docket control order wtho+i]your input. riirinX I have waited tong enough. Adpitionally, discovery responses are overdue. Please arr{vf tnis electronic correspondence to serve Yojrr as a forlnal request for res;ponses by no later than the end of the nu{iiress oay on rvonday, tVtay 18, 2015. lf I do not reoeive sqid responses, I will be filing a Motiorr for Contempt arif for Sanctions ll Thiink yotr for your prompt ;rttention to these matters. i Fk>:r Ii. F'lor:cs 'l'ex'as,l'4fer Lowyers - I\i.ring,\'tar.r 20/ j,ctncl.20/ 5 The Law fiir.rn of Filor E. Flores, PLLC 700 N. Florei; St,, Str::. Ii Rio Grande Cin','Iexas 7B5BZ 'l'ol: (956):Zti13-1'f86 trax: (956),lfii3-1750 $,W$'. [1]oreslaur.conl [l l o re s] :ru,@)gmar L c;o n"t httos://mail.ooo0le-com/nrall/u/o/?rLi=!1i ift:::2/fy62431og&vie_w= nt&o= ino/nl tnf.aleonf aw nnm.tnq=trr pRcparnh=nr prrr,tlh= 1 AdAcAOaah 1 t,1 ij NrJr-c c' *o,cLooK__ d_ M ti AU6 2 0 2015 lr i P{L- \.1- I CI.EfiK STASR CO. TX ll AT LAW STARR COLINTY, TI]XAS Iitlt zulMIiMlSERED that on ti "J day of ,2015, a docket codtrol cr:nfen:flcer was held. l ,l A. Jury T'rifl requested: Yes B. Deadlinp to request for jury: C. l'his case is sr:t for'Irial qloO >-rn. D. r\ .Pre-Trial conference is set for . (Pre-Trial Notbbook is mandatory) E. l"he dr:a$line for filing all dispositive summary and pretrial motions by I)efendzint (s) is _ The court will schedule a h.earing po it,iiO rnotio* up* th" ftlirrg of ru*". l'he dr:rabline for filing all dispositive summary r and pretrial motions by [:'laintiff(r;) is _ The court will schedule a hiearing prL said motions upon the fiiing. G. 'Jlhe dr:rapline for designation of expert witnesses Defendant (s) tq' VfrT/ H. llhe deadliLne for designation of expert witnesses Plaintiff (s) is: TECP l. llhe dea$line for completion of discovery for (s) is: TlIC P J. llhe drlahline for completion of discovery for P ru (s) ls: t' m cp t, I\. llhe d,radline for amendment of allpleadings for l jDefendant (s) is: TNC P TnCf I L. llhe deadline for amendment of all pleadings for Plaintiff (s) is: , tvl. l.'he d,:adline to submit to mediation is Manda 0  F (S) ATTORNEY/ F/o, €- Fl,'" s: 't K0 I /1/ F/on, 8/. /a '?56 r, (rst 2b 3 - /75, s) ATTORMY 27- 4,rr*' 6s,zp ,41S,nn Al L,L,,t- eoo V ?p1 eeo s- an4 Sr- ?ro 1'an/, 4'an/e Cb,ru. T4: (?sa) "":t:f: fr*, GsA) Aez- s|o{  kimail - ehile I exas.oov - hr Accepted - 4663%3 # qlr {-*nW,,it r:,;!1tri[{ii $ Flor Flores ".-**-!****** tl .i*-----------*-- eFifeTexas.gtov ...' Iriling Accepted - 4663943 1 me$sage ***-j+-***"i-*"**** r ttto-fignlV@pfi leterxas. g;civ < No-Reprly@efiletexas. gov> Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:53 PM To: f{f ores lairy@{lrnaril. c om l J.tEl'lll_[ Filing Accepted [*F' IEi{ril$.gr]rr il l Envelope Number: 4663943 I l ThS filin$ belh:w v,rgs reviewed and has been accel by the clerk$ office. Be sure to click thdLlin[< pelc,ur to retneve your file stamped copy of document filed. https://mailllioogle.cdm/mailrrr"t/O/?ui::2&ik=ir700a43108&view= nt&d= pR-1r'-16Rcq=rrr pp-c n arr t 9-th- 1 A raAEl ^/^onELA^o ^t ^r- a t ^a^E r -  I j I l CAUSE NO. PR. i, ltu I]\ THE IIISTITTII OF I t* THE COUNTY CO l $ $ I I A,RfEn/nIO RIO{i $ s I AT LAW OF nnbnasin:u l $ i i STARR COUNTY, TE I ,F WRITTEN DISCOVT]R I t:fltvfn$ N,OW, STIEPHANIE RIOS, Appti in the above entitled and numbered cauEe, arnd pursuant to the lfexas Rule of Civil procedu Rule 191.4, files this First Certificate of Srritten f,riscovely and certifies that on this 26th day , March 2015, Applicant forwarded the n rr I tollciwrng to opposiing counsel. l I. .Afotrtlicnnt's Rule 194 Requestfor to Intervenor; and 2:.. First Set oJ'Interrog .Aptrtlticunt's for Adtnissions, and Requests ,fQr Production to Intervenor. Respectful submitted, Ttre Law RM oF FIon B. FIonns. PLLC 700 N. Flo St., Ste, E Rio Gr ity, Texas 18582 Tel: (956) 3-r786 Fax: (956) 3-r750 Email: tt] ( Flor State No.24065235 Attot for Applicant Stephanie Rios Cause No. PR-1II-16; In the ll,state of Artenio Rios. Deceased Aprurcawr's lirnsl. rlEn.nrrcATE oF WRrfinN Drscoveny 1t ii ii lj tl ii VI I, Irlor Flores, hereby certiSr that on this the tn day pf March,, 2015, a true and correct of 's First CetiJicate of Written Disco werp served unto all parties of record, th the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure: ONI ILBERTO FALCOI'I. Maria Adriana Fl.ores E. Flores -14-16; Ilt the Estate of Artemio Rios, Deceasetl Page2 of2 Irrnsr CrinrmrcerE or WRrrrEN DrscovERy  Gmail - eFileTexas.oov -Fili - 6306743 lAccepted I I Flor Flores I I i-*'- I I I Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 2:42 PM HFlll"[ Filing Accepted TEHlffi,grlrr' Envelope Number: 6306743 berlow wQs reviewc.d and has been accel by the clerks office. Be sure to click llour to retrieve your file stamped copy of document filed.  Flor Flores Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 2:44 pM filllllJ Filing Accepted qTn}fr,*$.ffw THHfi$. Envelope Number: 690731S g filini beforrv wds rerviewed and has been accept by the clerks office. Be sure to click ri link pelory to relrieve your file stamped copy of tl document filed. hffnq'//maillnmfonhm/mailf /..lli- dgjt.-^1 n^reinog'i^..,_^rea_Fr 4t 4^o_^_L-,,^o--_--  Gmail - eFileTexas.gov - Accepted - 6307396 Flor Flores r';{ rn x rl{L **,*]-1-.*_ eFilbTe 1 mgssage s.99v .: Nlo-Reply@efiletexas. gov> Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 2:52 pM Lcofn Filing Accepted Envelope Number: 6307396 ow!/qs rr;'viewed and has been accep by the clerks office, Be sure to click v to rqtrierve your file stamped copy oi. document filed. m/rnail/]r-r,t0l?ui,=2&i k= a700a431 Og&view= ot&o= nr-,t4_ 1 68.os=rrr rarv 2lh= 4 A aaEo Aefrriffe^? g * _. E^^ r^ ^ ; r ^ ^^ E ^^ _ -  Gmail - eFileTexas.gov - - 6307474 Flor Flores lit eFil .-IFif iing Accepted - 6307474 1me Fri, ,Jul 31, 2015 at 2:50 PM Filing Accepted ll$,-$*tt" Envelope Number: 6307474 w wqs reviewed and has been accel by the clerkS office. Be sure to click to retrieve your file stamped copy of document fildd. I lll, l l*^- 'rt- ,^^^^, ^ii ^ ^i* ,* ^ it t,,t^t^, .l-4oit.--?,ta- ,^r na 6. .: ^  Flled: 2/1 /2O15 '| :01:01 PM Eloy R. Garcia, District Clerk Stan County, Texas Brendaly GuerreroFiled: 8/31/2015 10:45:48 AM CAUSE NO. DC-13-971 Dennis D. Gonzalez County Clerk HUGO ALANIA JR., STEPHANTE RrOS $ rN THE DTSTRTCT COURT Starr County, Texas And ARTEMIO RIOS, JR,Individually $and Lilly Guerrero On Behalf of the Estate of ARTEMIO RIOS, S Plaintffi, S s And $ s JOANN GONZALEZ, and S RAMES GONZALEZ, S $ AND $ 381't JUDICIAL DISTRTCT $ MARHMAGDALENAFLORES,ASNEXT $ FRIEND OX'AMY DEL CARMEN RrOS, A $ MINOR CHILD S Intervenor-Plaintilfs $ $ Y.$ $ ANDERSON COLIMBIA COMPAIYY,INC" $ $ Defendant $ srARR COITNTY, TEXAS AGREED AMENDED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER Feb. BE IT REMEMBERED THAT' ON 2nd DAY OF Jamuy, 2015, counsels for Plaintiffs, Interuenors, and Defendan! appeared and agleed, and the Court entered the following order: 1. Jury selection-Trial: Octoberl9' 2015 at 9:00 a.m. 2. Desiguation of ExPerts: a) Plaintiffs/lntervenors: May 8,2015 b) Defendant: June 15,2015 3. Discovery Deadlines: a) Plaintiffs/Intervenors: September 18' 2015 b) Defendant: September 18,2015 Seot. 4. DaubertlRobinson Hearings (if needed), ffist -\2015 at 9:00 a.m.  a) Amerndment of Pleadings (Plaintiff): May 1l 10, 2015 tr) Amendment of Pleadings (Defendant): July 6,2015 Itinal Pre-Trial conference Pursuant to T.RC.P. # 166z october 7 , 20ls art 9:00 e'.m. l\ll Motirrns in limine shall be filed and heard at final pretrial. llrial Nolebooks are due two (2) weeks before Final Pre-Trial Conference. llrial Notebooks shall be incompliance with T.R.C.P. 166, including special issues. SIGITED AND ORDERED ON THIS 2 d^y o1 Feb. 2015. Luis Garza Keith W.lapeze State Bar No. 24010176 Taylor Shiprnan State Bar No. 24079323 Christopher,K. Johnsr State Bar No. 240021353 LAPEZTI & IOHNS, P.L.L.C. 601 Sawyer Street, Suite 650 Houston' TX:"77007 Phone: ('713) 739-1010 Fax: (713) 7'39-l0li' tay lor@ lqp4qhrm. cronn keith@lapezej ohns. com christopher@lapezej,ohns. com C ouns e I .for P I ai nt iff' / Interv enor 01/30/2015 EF1'l Ft{H S582631?50 Law Firm of E 0002/0002 rt) Amendment of Fleadings (Plainriff): M il 10,20t5 b) Arnendment of Pleadiugt (Defendant): Ju 6,2015 l'inal Pre-l'rial Conference Pursuant to 1'.R,C.P # 166: October _r 201s at 9;00 s.m. All Motions in liminp shall be filed and heard at pretrial. Trial Notebooks are due rwo (Z) weeks before Final Trisl Cqnference, I TrialNotebooks shall be incompliance with T,R.C, I 66, incljuding special tssues, SIGNED AND ORI}ERED ON THI$ 20r5. Jose Luis Garza 38lst Dlstrlct Ju Kei W;Lapeze Staie N0.24010176 No. 24065235 Sfipman THE W FIRM OF fLOR E. FLORES, No. 240?9323 700 N. lores $treet, Suite E K. Johns Rio Ciry,,Texas 78582 Sti i No, 24002353 Phone: (956) 263- I 786 LI & JOIINS, P,L-I,.C. Fax: ( ) 253- 1;7s0 60 i,er Street, Suire 650 fllsr I TX 77007 Jbr PlaintilJs (713) 73e..r010 F ls) 739-10r5 LO_rn kei sJ0npurg..9a t! ohns.oom C lM Plaintiff / Intervenor  L. Ramirez BarNo.16506200 RAMIREZ LAW FIRM, PLLC Hackberry Ave. TX 78501 : (956) 668-8t00 (956) 668-8101 for Intervenor tr\ No.21648500 Braich N0.24033198 P. Geer No.00786389 Williams State No.24070854 1044 N. Central Exprcssway, Suite 520 Dalla Texas 7523 I Qt4)736-9433 t4)736-9994 for Defendant