ACCEPTED 15-24-00017-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/9/2025 12:12 PM No. 15-24-00017-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTEENTH DISTRICT OFILED F TEXAS 15th COURT IN OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS ALL STAR IMPORTS, INC. D/B/A WORLD CAR MAZDA NORTH 1/9/2025 , 12:12:37 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Appellant and Cross-Appellee, Clerk
v. MAZDA MOTOR OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. A/K/A MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC., Cross-Appellant and Appellee, v. BOARD OF THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Appellee and Cross-Appellee.
On Appeal from Cause No. D-1-GN-23-005034 in the 345th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas
MAZDA’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE OR DISREGARD THE MERITS PORTIONS OF MAZDA’S CROSS-APPELLANT’S BRIEF
Brit T. Brown Jeff Nobles brit.brown@akerman.com jeff.nobles@huschblackwell.com Texas Bar No. 03094550 Texas Bar No. 15053050 Benjamin A. Escobar, Jr. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP benjamin.escobar@akerman.com 600 Travis Street, Suite 2350 Texas Bar No. 00787440 Houston, Texas 77002 AKERMAN LLP Telephone: (713) 647-6800 1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2300 Facsimile: (713) 647-6884 Houston, Texas 77056-3000 Telephone: (713) 623-0887 Facsimile: (713) 960-1527
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT, MAZDA MOTOR OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. A/K/A MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Introduction ............................................................................................... 1 Background................................................................................................ 3 A. Mazda’s legal arguments are not based on the administrative record. ............................................................. 3 B. This case is not solely a “jurisdictional appeal.” .................... 4 Argument ................................................................................................... 6 I. Mazda’s brief is consistent with its previous filings and the Court’s September 24 Order.................. 6 II. The Court has the power to address Mazda’s arguments on the merits................................................ 9 III. Mazda preserved its merits arguments. ...................... 11 IV. The Motion’s “piecemeal” arguments are groundless. ................................................................... 12 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 16
ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Church v. City of Alvin, No. 01-13-00865-CV, 2015 WL 5769998 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 29, 2015, no pet.)........................................................... 6, 14
El Paso Nat. Gas Co. v. Minco Oil & Gas, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. 1999) ............................................................... 15, 16
First United Pentecostal Church of Beaumont v. Parker, 514 S.W.3d 214 (Tex. 2017) ................................................................. 15
Fredonia State Bank v. General Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279 (Tex. 1994) ................................................................. 10
Grand Prairie Hosp. Auth. v. Tarrant Appraisal Dist., 707 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1986, writ ref d n.r.e.) .... 5, 13
Horizon Health Corp. v. Acadia Healthcare Co., Inc., 520 S.W.3d 848 (Tex. 2017) ................................................................. 15
In re Shafer, No. 01-24-00190-CR, 2024 WL 2965236 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 13, 2024, orig. proceeding) ................................................ 17
Malone v. Pub. Util. Comm'n of Tex., No. 03-11-00815-CV, 2013 WL 4820454 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 28, 2013, no pet.) ............................................................................ 18, 19, 20
Patel v. Trevino, No. 01-20-00445-CV, 2022 WL 3720135, n.4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 30, 2022, no pet.) ........................................................... 5, 13
Phillips v. Boo 2 You, LLC, No. 03-14-00406-CV, 2016 WL 2907971 (Tex. App.—Austin May 13, 2016, no pet.) ........................................................................................ 10
iii Star Houston, Inc. v. Volvo Cars of N. Am., LLC, 673 S.W.3d 644 (Tex. App.—Austin 2023, pet. denied) ...................... 21
Statutes
TEX. GOV’T CODE § 2001.146(c) .................................................................. 4
TEX. OCC. CODE § 2301.751(2)(b) ............................................................. 17
TEX. OCC. CODE § 2301.751(a)(2) ......................................................... 5, 12
TEX. OCC. CODE § 2301.751(b) ................................................................. 12
Rules
TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1.................................................................................. 10
TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2, 43.3 ......................................................................... 11
iv TO THE HONORABLE FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS:
Cross-Appellant Mazda Motor of North America, Inc. a/k/a Mazda
Motor of America, Inc. (“Mazda”), respectfully files this response to
Appellant’s Motion to Strike or Disregard the Merits Portions of its
Cross-Appellant’s Brief (the “Motion”).
INTRODUCTION
This case arises from World Car North’s misconduct: (1) its reckless
and dangerous failure to service defective Takata airbags, and (2) its
misrepresentation that it had performed that work when it had not. CR
95, 135-36. Mazda discovered this misconduct almost seven years ago, in
April 2018.
This misconduct resulted in a January 6, 2022, administrative
decision authorizing the termination of World Car North’s Mazda
franchise. CR 85. The substantial evidence of misconduct compelled the
ALJ to rule that World Car North’s employee “contributed to a significant
risk of harm over a period of time by falsely reporting Takata airbag
recall work as having been completed, and that its management was
“extremely slow to take the issue seriously.” CR 128-29. “Once informed by Mazda about the issue, World Car North management was
lackadaisical in its attempts to resolve the inflator issue.” CR 135.
Nearly seven years after World Car North’s wrongful conduct was
discovered, and three years after the ALJ made these findings, Mazda’s
right to terminate the World Car North franchise is still being delayed.
The Motion asks the Court to strike or disregard two short legal
arguments, covering just seven pages in Mazda’s opening brief. See
Mazda Br. at 19-25. These legal arguments are not based on the
administrative record, which has not yet been filed in this Court.
Both of Mazda’s legal arguments were contained in briefing that
Mazda served 18 months ago, on July 10, 2023. CR 665-70. While World
Car North and the Board have never responded to these arguments, there
is no reason they should not respond to them now. Mazda is familiar with
the maxim that the wheels of justice turn slowly and grind exceedingly
fine, but the merits issues in Mazda’s brief are ready for decision, as
shown below. It will cause no prejudice to World Car North or the Board
to brief these uncomplicated merits issues now. For the following reasons,
Mazda respectfully asks the Court to deny the Motion.
2 BACKGROUND
Mazda does not agree with all the specifics contained in the
“Background” section of the Motion and offers the following summary of
the most significant differences in the parties’ views.
A. Mazda’s legal arguments are not based on the administrative record.
The Motion paints a one-sided picture of the differences between
the merits arguments of the two sides. It accurately says that “it would
be impossible to brief or resolve World Car North’s merits challenges
without the administrative record.” Mot. at 6. This is because World Car
North must be expected to brief lengthy arguments that the ALJ’s
findings of fact and conclusions of law should be set aside. These
arguments are briefed over a span of 53 pages in the Clerk’s Record of
this appeal, CR 677-733, but there is not yet an administrative record
supporting them. World Car North’s legal arguments will be complicated
and time-consuming to brief and decide.
Mazda’s merits arguments are different. Mazda asks this Court to
review the Board’s Final Order of June 14, 2023, on two narrow legal
grounds, briefed in six pages of the Clerk’s Record. CR 665-70. Mazda’s
brief covers these arguments in seven pages. These arguments are based
3 on the text of the Board’s Order and not the absent administrative record.
Mazda does not ask for a different result, but for the language of the
Board’s Order to be reconciled with the requirements of Texas law.
Mazda Br. at 19-25. World Car North and the Board have already had 18
months to consider Mazda’s position. Mazda’s legal arguments will not
be complicated or time-consuming to brief and decide.
B. This case is not solely a “jurisdictional appeal.”
The Motion calls this case, No. 15-24-00017-CV, a “Jurisdictional
Appeal” to imply that this appeal does not concern any issues on the
merits. That is incorrect.
The jurisdictional issue turns on whether the parties’ motions for
rehearing were overruled by operation of law on August 8, 2023. TEX.
GOV’T CODE § 2001.146(c). The Board did not rule until August 9, 2023.
If the Board was not required to rule before August 9, Texas courts do
not have jurisdiction over the merits, but there is no Texas precedent that
supports the Board’s jurisdictional argument. Mazda Br. at 13-19.
The second case before this Court, No. 15-24-00039-CV, was
removed by Mazda to the court of appeals pursuant to the statute that
gives this Court direct jurisdiction over the parties’ appeals from the
4 Board’s Order. TEX. OCC. CODE § 2301.751(a)(2). While the Motion argues
that Mazda’s appeal is untimely, there is no precedent supporting that
view. Instead, Texas law supports Mazda’s removal rights “before trial,”
id., and the hearing on a plea to the jurisdiction is not a “trial.”1
Both cases pending in this Court, Nos. 15-24-00017-CV and
15-24-00039-CV, have been consolidated for decisions on the merits at
the joint request of the parties. If this Court agrees that the Board did
not timely rule, this Court can fully determine the merits of the parties’
arguments on the merits in each of these consolidated appeals. Therefore,
this case, No. 15-24-00017-CV, is not merely a jurisdictional appeal.
1 See, e.g., Grand Prairie Hosp. Auth. v. Tarrant Appraisal Dist., 707 S.W.2d 281, 283
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1986, writ ref d n.r.e.) (hearing on plea to jurisdiction is not a “trial”); Patel v. Trevino, No. 01-20-00445-CV, 2022 WL 3720135, at *1, n.4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 30, 2022, no pet.); Church v. City of Alvin, No. 01-13- 00865-CV, 2015 WL 5769998, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 29, 2015, no pet.).
5 ARGUMENT
I. Mazda’s brief is consistent with its previous filings and the Court’s September 24 Order.
The Motion incorrectly argues that Mazda’s brief “contradicts the
parties’ joint efforts and agreement to brief jurisdiction first and the
Court’s resulting order staying all proceedings on the merits and
directing the parties to brief this appeal only.” Mot. at 7. Mazda has never
agreed to delay its briefing on its merits arguments, which were
preserved below and do not require an administrative record.
The Motion devotes almost 10 pages to its argument that the merits
of Mazda’s brief should be stricken or disregarded based on the Court’s
September 24 Order, but never quotes what the Court actually said in
that Order:
Appellee World Car Mazda North’s Motion to Consolidate Appeals, Stay All Proceedings on the Merits, and Set Briefing Schedule on Jurisdictional Issue was granted by this Court on the date noted above. This appeal is consolidated with 15- 24-00017-CV for administrative purposes. The Court stays the deadline for filing the administrative record and filing briefs in cause number 15-24-00039-CV. Appellant’s and Cross-Appellant’s briefs in cause number 15-24-00017-CV are due on or before October 24, 2024. Appellees’ and Cross- Appellee’s briefs will be due 30 days from the filing of Appellant’s and Cross-Appellant’s briefs. Reply briefs, if any, will be due within 15 days from the filing of Appellees’ and Cross-Appellee’s briefs.
6 9/24/24 Order. The Court’s Order (1) consolidates the two cases in this
Court for administrative purposes, (2) stays the deadline for filing the
administrative record, and (3) stays briefing deadlines in cause number
15-24-00039-CV. It does not instruct Mazda to delay the briefing of its
merits arguments that are not based on the administrative record.
The relief granted by the Court is not identical to the relief sought
by World Car North in the several appellate motions it has filed in the
Third Court and this Court. World Car North filed a 16-page “Motion to
Determine Jurisdiction” in the Third Court on March 7, 2024, asking the
Third Court to “issue an order determining whether or not the Board’s
June 14 order is a final and appealable order subject to judicial review.”
3/7/24 Mot. at 17. The Third Court never ruled on that motion, which this
Court has dismissed as moot.
World Car North also filed, on March 29, 2024, a 10-page “Motion
to Consolidate Appeals, Stay All Proceedings on the Merits, and Set
Briefing Schedule on Jurisdictional Issue,” which asked the Third Court
to “to vacate the current briefing deadlines in cause No. 03-24-00078-CV
and establish a new schedule for briefing the jurisdictional issue in the
consolidated appeal by setting deadlines for the other parties to respond
7 to World Car North’s motion to determine jurisdiction that is separately
being filed.” 3/29/24 Mot. at 10. There has never been an order setting
deadlines for responding to World Car North’s motion to determine
jurisdiction.
In the Third Court, Mazda filed a letter that stated:
We write to advise the Court that Mazda Motor of North America, Inc. (“Mazda”) does not oppose an expedited briefing schedule on whether the Texas Motor Vehicle Board acted timely on the parties’ respective motions for hearing. Mazda opposes All Star Imports d/b/a World Car Mazda North's request to stay the preparation of the administrative record.
Mazda 3/29/24 Letter, filed in N0. 03-24-00144-CV. The Third Court
never set such an expedited briefing schedule.
The relief granted by this Court is similar but not identical to the
relief requested in World Car North’s numerous motions. This Court did
not order the parties to file briefs, expedited or otherwise, limited to the
issue of jurisdiction. Instead, it ordered the parties to file their
“Appellant’s and Cross-Appellant’s briefs” in cause number 15-24-00017-
CV and stayed the deadline for filing the administrative record and filing
briefs in cause number 15-24-00039-CV. Mazda complied with this order
by filing its brief addressing the jurisdictional issues and its two merits
arguments that are not based on the administrative record.
8 Mazda’s counsel has no discretion to delay or omit arguments in
their briefing for their client. If a party delays or omits meaningful
argument, appellate courts may consider the issue waived. See Fredonia
State Bank v. General Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 283-85 (Tex.
1994); see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1 (requiring appellate brief to include “clear
and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate
citations to authorities and to the record”); Phillips v. Boo 2 You, LLC,
No. 03-14-00406-CV, 2016 WL 2907971, at *5 (Tex. App.—Austin May
13, 2016, no pet.).
While this Court has discretion to decide whether omitted legal
arguments are waived, the parties and their counsel do not. Any decision
to delay or omit arguments that might be raised in a brief raises
unacceptable risks for Mazda and its counsel.
II. The Court has the power to address Mazda’s arguments on the merits.
The Motion also argues that “Mazda’s merits briefing is improper”
because the Court has no power to consider them. This is also incorrect.
The Motion asserts that this Court’s power is limited because the
trial court granted the Board’s plea to the jurisdiction. It relies on the
appellate rules to argue that this Court’s power is limited to remanding
9 the case to the trial court after reversing the order granting the plea to
the jurisdiction. Mot. at 11-12 (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2, 43.3). The short
version of this argument is that “it would be improper for this Court to
render a merits judgment from a granted plea to the jurisdiction.” Mot.
at 12. That argument does not apply here, because Mazda filed a motion
for removal that empowers this Court to decide all the merits issues in
the case.
If this Court agrees that the Board’s August 10 order was untimely,
the merits of the case will not return to the trial court for decision. Only
this Court will have jurisdiction to decide the merits of the case. See TEX.
OCC. CODE § 2301.751(a)(2). The trial court will not have jurisdiction to
consider the appeal from the Board under those circumstances.
The Motion’s second argument on this issue—its assertion that
Mazda did not timely seek judicial review from the June 14 Order, Mot.
at 12-13—is also inapplicable here. The deadline for removing an appeal
from the district court to this Court is any time “before trial.” TEX. OCC.
CODE § 2301.751(b). A hearing on a plea to the jurisdiction is not a trial.
See, e.g., Grand Prairie Hosp. Auth. v. Tarrant Appraisal Dist., 707
S.W.2d 281, 283 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1986, writ ref d n.r.e.) (hearing
10 on plea to jurisdiction is not a “trial”); Patel v. Trevino, No. 01-20-00445-
CV, 2022 WL 3720135, at *1, n.4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug.
30, 2022, no pet.); Church v. City of Alvin, No. 01-13-00865-CV, 2015 WL
5769998, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 29, 2015, no pet.).
III. Mazda preserved its merits arguments.
The Motion further argues that Mazda “also failed to preserve some
challenges it now asserts.” Mot. at 13. The Motion identifies these alleged
waiver issues in a single sentence referencing “untrustworthiness” and
the “investment/obligation factor.” Id. These preservation arguments are
short, vague, and incorrect. Mazda addressed both of these issues in the
motion for rehearing it filed with the Board. See CR 666 (addressing
investment and obligations); CR 667-670 (addressing trustworthiness).
These arguments were not waived below. See Horizon Health Corp.
v. Acadia Healthcare Co., Inc., 520 S.W.3d 848, 882 (Tex. 2017) (quoting
First United Pentecostal Church of Beaumont v. Parker, 514 S.W.3d 214,
222 (Tex. 2017) (“In considering assertions that claims have been waived,
we construe briefing reasonably, yet liberally, so that the right to
appellate review is not lost by waiver.” (cleaned up)); El Paso Nat. Gas
Co. v. Minco Oil & Gas, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 309, 316 (Tex. 1999) (“[W]e
11 liberally construe issues presented to obtain a just, fair, and equitable
adjudication of the rights of the litigants.”). If the Motion is suggesting
that Mazda’s brief should be stricken or disregarded on the basis of
alleged briefing waiver, that argument is not supported by Texas
appellate decisions that reject such a harsh approach.
IV. The Motion’s “piecemeal” arguments are groundless.
Finally, the Motion complains that Mazda “wrongly asks the Court
to consider these merits points in the first instance, without a record, and
in piecemeal fashion.” Mot. at 14. The “piecemeal” argument is ironic,
because it is World Car North, not Mazda, that asked the Court to decide
the case in more than one round of briefing, in “piecemeal” fashion.
The Motion’s assertion that this Court cannot “be the first to
address [Mazda’s] merits arguments [before the trial court],” id., is wrong
as a matter of Texas law. Mazda has the statutory right to expedite
appellate review of the Board’s Order by filing a notice of removal in the
trial court before trial. TEX. OCC. CODE § 2301.751(2)(b). The Motion cites
an original proceeding in a criminal case that obviously did not involve
removal of an administrative appeal. In re Shafer, No. 01-24-00190-CR,
2024 WL 2965236, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 13, 2024,
12 orig. proceeding) (opinion by Justice Farris) (granting mandamus relief
in a criminal case). That case was an original proceeding arising from a
felony trial and does not involve Texas administrative law or a notice of
removal.
The Motion is also wrong when it asserts that Mazda’s complaints
about the Board’s June 14 Order cannot be reviewed without the entire
administrative record. Mot. at 14-15. Its only support for this assertion
is Mazda’s request for oral argument, in which Mazda stated that oral
argument would help the Court gain a complete understanding of the
facts. Mot. at 15 (citing Mazda Br. at ix). Mazda’s request for oral
argument, however, said nothing about needing the administrative
record to review Mazda’s legal arguments about the Board’s June 14
Order.
Under Texas law, Mazda’s merits arguments may be decided
without reference to the underlying administrative record. See, e.g.,
Malone v. Pub. Util. Comm'n of Tex., No. 03-11-00815-CV, 2013 WL
4820454 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 28, 2013, no pet.) (opinion by Justice
Field). In that case, the Third Court considered a challenge to the PUC’s
modification of a PFD by two ALJ’s. Id. at *1. Malone argued that the
13 PUC had not followed Texas law when it amended the ALJ’s findings. Id.
at *5.
Malone’s arguments were not based on the administrative record,
and the Third Court did not refer to the administrative record in its
analysis. Instead, Justice Field’s analysis focused on the ALJs’ PFD, the
PUC’s Order, and legal argument. Id. at *5-6. The PFD and the Board
Order are already contained in the Clerk’s Record filed in this Court.
There is no need for the Court to consider any other materials in deciding
Mazda’s cross-points.
The Motion argues Mazda is “off-base” for asking the Court to
decide its merits arguments now, and that “Mazda provides no authority
of any court resolving a case in this strange piecemeal fashion.” Mot. at
15. But the request for piecemeal resolution came from World Car North,
not Mazda. Mazda has done its best to comply with the Court’s
September 24 Order without waiving its merits arguments or facilitating
unnecessary delay.
Further, the Motion incorrectly argues that “Mazda’s and World
Car North’s challenges each relate to the same multi-factor analysis,”
which cannot be argued in separate merits briefs. Actually, Mazda asks
14 for relief that will not change the result, but only two textual errors in
the Board’s June 14 Order. Mazda’s request for relief is important
because the Board’s modification of the ALJ’s findings or conclusions
might operate as res judicata or collateral estoppel in a subsequent
proceeding. Star Houston, Inc. v. Volvo Cars of N. Am., LLC, 673 S.W.3d
644, 655 (Tex. App.—Austin 2023, pet. denied).
On the other hand, World Car North seeks a complete do-over of
the result in the administrative proceedings, which may set the
resolution of the case back for a number of years. The arguments of the
two parties are not interrelated or co-dependent and do not involve the
same record, even though they arise from the same factual nucleus.
The Motion concludes with the assertion that Mazda’s briefing of
its only merits challenges now is improper and should be stricken or
disregarded. Mot. at 16. Mazda has every right to brief its merits
arguments now and, if it had omitted them, would face the unacceptable
risk of having waived them. It will cause no prejudice to World Car North
and the Board for them to brief their responsive arguments.
15 CONCLUSION
Mazda recognizes this Court’s power and discretion to manage its
docket in the manner it chooses. It is entirely possible that the Court will
decide to wait before addressing Mazda’s arguments on the merits. But
there can be no serious disagreement that it is the Court, not the parties,
that is in the best position to decide how to expedite its decision for the
good of the parties, the public, and the interests of justice.
Mazda believes it will expedite a final resolution of this dispute for
the Court to decide the merits of Mazda’s cross-appeal as soon as the
Court sees fit to do so. The Motion argues that the briefing of all the
merits issues, even those that are unrelated to the administrative record,
will be suspended and the Court will be precluded from deciding the
issues raised in Mazda’s cross-points. Such delay is neither proper nor
necessary.
For the sake of moving forward with the merits and avoiding
further unnecessary delay, Mazda asks that the Court deny the Motion
and grant all other relief Mazda is entitled to receive.
16 Respectfully submitted, /s/Brit T. Brown Brit T. Brown Brit.brown@akerman.com Texas Bar No. 03094550 Benjamin A. Escobar, Jr. Benjamin.escobar@akerman.com Texas Bar No. 00787440 AKERMAN LLP 1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2300 Houston, Texas 77056- Telephone: (713) 623-0887 Fax: (713) 960-1527 Fax: 713-647-6884
Jeff Nobles jeff.nobles@huschblackwell.com Texas Bar No. 15053050 HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 600 Travis Street, Suite 2350 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: 713-647-6800
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE/CROSS- APPELLANT, MAZDA MOTOR OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. A/K/A MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC.
17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that this document was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the electronic case filing system. A true and correct copy was served on the counsel of record listed below on January 9, 2025:
Jeffrey L. Oldham OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL jeff.oldham@bracewell.com Ken Paxton, Attorney General Walter A. Simons Brent Webster walter.simons@bracewell.com James Lloyd BRACEWELL LLP Ernest C. Garcia 711 Louisiana St., Ste. 2300 Kathy Johnson Houston, Texas 77002 kathy.johnson@oag.texas.gov P.O. Box 12548 Jarod R. Stewart Capital Station jstewart@steptoe.com Austin, Texas 78711 Austin Kreitz akreitz@steptoe.com Counsel for Appellee Board of the STEPTOE, LLP Texas Department of Motor 717 Texas Ave., Ste. 2800 Vehicles Houston, Texas 77002
Counsel for Appellant All Star Imports, Inc. d/b/a World Car Mazda North
/s/ Benjamin A. Escobar Benjamin A. Escobar
18 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
darlyn castillo on behalf of Jeffery Taylor Nobles Bar No. 15053050 darlyn.castillo@huschblackwell.com Envelope ID: 96036708 Filing Code Description: Response Filing Description: Mazda's Response to Motion to Strike or Disregard The Merits Portions of its Cross-Appellant's Brief Status as of 1/9/2025 12:21 PM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Benjamin AEscobar benjamin.escobar@akerman.com 1/9/2025 12:12:37 PM SENT
Brit T.Brown brit.brown@akerman.com 1/9/2025 12:12:37 PM SENT
Neila Olvera neila.olvera@akerman.com 1/9/2025 12:12:37 PM SENT
Jeffery Nobles 15053050 jeff.nobles@huschblackwell.com 1/9/2025 12:12:37 PM SENT
Jeffrey Oldham 24051132 jeff.oldham@bracewell.com 1/9/2025 12:12:37 PM SENT
Walter Simons 24098429 walter.simons@bracewell.com 1/9/2025 12:12:37 PM SENT
Jarod Stewart 24066147 jstewart@steptoe.com 1/9/2025 12:12:37 PM SENT
Austin Kreitz 24102044 akreitz@steptoe.com 1/9/2025 12:12:37 PM SENT
Katherine Johnson 24126964 kathy.johnson@oag.texas.gov 1/9/2025 12:12:37 PM SENT
Terri Patton terri.patton@bracewell.com 1/9/2025 12:12:37 PM SENT
Christina Ramos cramos@steptoe.com 1/9/2025 12:12:37 PM SENT
Sallie Woodell swoodell@steptoe.com 1/9/2025 12:12:37 PM SENT