in Re Glenn L. Williams

Summarize Case

Related Cases

ACCEPTED 04-17-00791-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 12/5/2017 4:13 PM NO. 04-17-00791-CV FILED IN In RE GLENN L. WILLIAMS, § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 4th COURT OF APPEALS Relator § SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS § 12/5/2017 4:13:57 PM § FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT KEITH E. HOTTLE § CLERK § § § SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RESPONSE TO GLENN WILLIAMS’ MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY ______________________________________________________________________________ TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW KARL L. WILLIAMS (“Karl Williams” or “Karl”), a real party in interest, and files this RESPONSE TO GLENN WILLIAMS’ MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY and would show the Court as follows: 1. TIMELINE1 1.1.1. May 8, 2107 – Notice of deposition and subpoenas duces tecum filed by Glenn Williams for Karl William’s attorneys. 1.1.2. May 9, 2017 – Motion to Quash Depositions and Protective Order filed by Karl Williams on notice of depositions and subpoenas duces tecum. 1.1.3. September 21, 2017 – hearing and granting of Motion to Strike Guy James Gray as third-party defendant. 1.1.4. September 21, 2017 – hearing and granting of Motion to Quash Depositions and Protective Order. 1.1.5. November 9, 2017 – order entered on Motion to Quash Depositions and Protective Order. 1.1.6. November 29, 2017 – Relator Glenn Williams amended petition and added tortious interference claim against Guy James Gray as third-party defendant. 1.1.7. December 4, 2017 – Relator files Writ of Mandamus and Motion for Emergency Stay. 1.1.8. December 5, 2107 – order entered to strike Guy James Gray as Third-party defendant. Exhibit A, attached. 1.1.9. December 7, 2017 – hearing set for Karl Williams’ Traditional Summary Judgment. 1 All other relevant orders have been filed by Relator in their Writ, other than the December 5th order. RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY Page 1 of 5 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1. Attorney fees are the basis of this current controversy. Relator Glenn Williams convolutes the time frames when presenting his request for emergency stay and in his writ of mandamus. Facts are disputed. The ruling on the Motion to Quash Depositions and Protective Order were based on pleadings in May 2017. Numerous amendments have occurred and orders rendered, not only since the notice of depositions, but since the court’s rulings in September, November, and now December of 2017. 2.2. Relator will claim that one attorney is a party to the suit. However, on September 21, 2017 the court ordered that Guy James Gray is no longer a party to the suit and any actions raised by Relator were moot. (Ordered entered December 5, 2017). On November 29, 2017, after the ruling on the deposition and subpoena duces tecum, Realtor amended this Counterclaim against Mr. Gray as a third-party defendant, now raising a tortious interference claim. Relator is trying to now reach back to decisions made in September 21, 2017 and use this to stay all proceedings, failing to let the Court know the true sequence of events. 2.3. This cause was originally scheduled for trial to start on July 10, 2017. A continuance of the trial was granted due to subsequent actions of Relator Glenn Williams. 2.4. The case involves a declaratory judgement on a forged deed, and a counterclaim for breach of contract, constructive trust, and a litany of other causes of action. 2.5. Relator wants to depose all of Karl Williams’ attorneys and asks for documents regarding communications. The attorney fees arise due to the declaratory judgment act RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY Page 2 of 5 and breach of contract claim. However, the attorney fees are not part of the underlying suit. There is no reason to stay the case for ongoing discovery and pending motions. 2.6. On May 8, 2017, Relator served subpoenas/notices via e-filing to take the depositions of real party Karl William’s counsel Diana Reinhart and Karl’s former counsel Kim Bueno, as well as a notice to depose Guy James Gray, Karl’s lead counsel. See Exhibits A – C. None of the attorneys are fact witnesses or designated experts in this case. Each of these three subpoenas/notices include a subpoena duces tecum for communications among Karl’s lawyers pertaining to this litigation – documents that are unquestionably privileged and/or protected by the work-product doctrine. 2.7. Karl filed his motion to quash Glenn Williams’ deposition notices for each of the three attorneys on May 9, 2017 on the basis that they were not parties, experts or fact witnesses and that the information sought was protected attorney client communications and work product. 2.8. A hearing was held on September 21, 2017 to rule on several motions and to set the trial in this matter. On this date the court ruled on the Motion to Quash and Protective Order regarding the depositions of Plaintiff Karl Williams’ attorneys, with the Order granting Plaintiff’s motion signed on November 9, 2017. Trial is set for February 12, 2017. Plaintiff’s Motion for Traditional Summary Judgment is set for December 7, 2017. 3. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES 3.1. Pursuant to Rule 52.10(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, may grant any "just relief" pending the disposition of an original petition without notice. Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(b). Just relief may include staying the enforcement of an order for purposes of protecting the jurisdiction of the appellate court by maintaining the status quo of the underlying proceeding while the court considers the merits of the original proceeding. In RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY Page 3 of 5 re Kelleher, 999 S.W.2d 51, 52 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1999, orig. proceeding); In re Reed, 901 S.W.2d 604, 609 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1995, orig. proceeding). Karl Williams argues that the relief requested is not just and that his rights to pursue his case will be delayed. 3.2. A hearing on the summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Karl Williams is set for December 7, 2017. Relator (Defendant) Glenn Williams is trying everything he can to delay pending hearings. 3.3. Relator cannot establish that his ability to present a viable claim or defense is “vitiated or severely compromised” by trial court’s order denying this form of discovery. There is no reasons for an emergency stay. If need be, the trial date can be changed, or the attorney fees can be severed, but for all other purposes the case can move forward. 3.4. Abating the entire case will affect Karl Williams’ ability to pursue his case – specifically to have his motion to strike the third-party defendant and to have his traditional summary judgment motion heard. PRAYER. Real party in interest Karl Williams’ prays the emergency stay is denied and that the case can proceed with scheduled hearings, while the writ of mandamus regarding the deposition and subpoena duces tecum regarding attorney fees is considered. Respectfully Submitted, By: /s/ Carmen Samaniego CARMEN SAMANIEGO State Bar No.: 24027951 515 James Street Boerne, Texas 78006 Telephone: (210) 802-4888 Facsimile: (888) 224-3924 attorneycarmen@me.com RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY Page 4 of 5 Guy James Gray – Attorney in Charge State Bar No. 08336500 Attorney at Law 820 Main Street, Suite 100 Kerrville, Texas 78028 Telephone: (830) 258-4223 Facsimile: (830) 257-6119 gjgray@windstream.net ATTORNEYS FOR KARL L. WILLIAMS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served on counsel of record on this 5th day of December, 2017 pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure: THE WENHOLZ LAW FIRM, P.C. Fred Coogan, III 13501 Galleria Circle Suite W-270 Bee Cave, Texas 78738 Attorneys for Glenn L. Williams Patrick Maguire PATRICK MAGUIRE, P.C. 945 Barnett Street Kerrville, Texas 78028 Attorneys for Glenn L. Williams /s/ Carmen Samaniego CARMEN SAMANIEGO RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY Page 5 of 5 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 12/5/2017 4:13:57 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE CLERK A EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT CAUSE NO. CV—l3-235 KARL L. WILLIAMS IN THE DISTRI IT COURT V. oovamoooaaozaoz 198"‘ JUDICIAL DISTRICT GLENN L. WILLIAMS BAN DERA COUNTY, TEXAS ORDER GRANTING KARL L. WILLIAMS’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER On this day, came to be considered Karl L. Wil1iams’s Motion to Strike and Motion for Protective Order. The Court, having considered the motion and arguments of couns :1 finds that the motion should be GRANTED. It is therefore ORDERED that Karl L. Wi1liams’s Motion to Strike and Motion for Protective Order is hereby GRANTED. It is ORDERED that that Guy further mes Gray is dismissed as a party from this case. Gr/w{'-‘Q 9/“M '7 I‘! SIGNED this 6 day of € <- ,2o17. The ‘fifiiorabie Stephen B. Ables By: CARMEN SAMANIEGO State Bar No.: 24027951 515 James Street Boeme, Texas 78006 Telephone: (210) 802-4888 Facsimile: (888) 224—3924 attorneyc@en@me.com Guy James Gray — Attorney in Charge StateBar No. 08336500 820 Main Street, Suite 100 Kerrville, Texas 78028 Telephone: (830) 258-4223 Facsimile: (830) 257-6119 gjgray@windstream.net ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF By: Fred Coogan, III State Bar No. 00783866 The Wenholz Law Firm, PLLC 13501 Galleria Circle, Suite W-270 Bee Cave, Texas 78738 Telephone: (512) 478-2211 Facsimile: (512) 478-3625 M. Patrick Maguire State Bar No. 24002515 M. Patrick Maquire, PC. 945 Bamett Street Kerrville, Teas 78028 Telephone: (830) 895-2590 Facsimile: (830) 895-2594 A TTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT Order on Motion to Strike Page 2