Debra v. Jennings, Esq. and Debra v. Jennings, P.L.L.C. v. American Asset Finance, L.L.C.

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided June 22, 2015·No. 14-14-00860-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED

14-14-00860-CV

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/22/2015 11:03:57 PM

14-1400860-CV CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK

No.14-11-00977-CV

FILED IN

14th COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS FOR THE FOURTEENTH DISTRICT 6/22/2015 11:03:57 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

HOUSTON, TEXAS Clerk

DEBRA JENNINGS, ESQ. AND DEBRA JENNINGS, P.L.L.C.

Appellant

V.

AMERICAN ASSET

Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. Four

Harris County, Texas; Cause No. 1030758

RESPONSE TO

MOTION TO DISMISS

LAW OFFICE OF DEBRA V. JENNINGS Debra V. Jennings lawyerdvj@yahoo.com State Bar No. 10631850

6140 HWY 6, # 269

Missouri City, Texas 77459 Telephone: (832) 230-4455 Facsimile: (1832) 442-3700

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

NOW COMES Appellant, Debra Jennings, and submits this response in opposition to

Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss and in support will show:

1. THE MOTION TO DISMISS FAILS BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN THE PROPER FORM A. THE MOTION DOES NOT CONTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE AS REQUIRED BY TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.1(a)(5) states that a motion filed “must” contain:

(5) in civil cases, except for motions for rehearing and en banc reconsideration, contain or be accompanied by a certificate stating that the filing party conferred, or made a reasonable attempt to confer, with all other parties about the merits of the motion and whether those parties oppose the motion.

Tex. R. App. P. 10.1(a)(5) (emphasis added). A close examination of the motion to dismiss

(Exhibit “A”) reveals that it contains no such certificate. The motion should be denied and

appellee should, at a minimum be required to re-file the motion with a correct certificate of

conference.

B. THE MOTION DOES NOT ATTACH EXHIBITS OR AFFIDAVITS AS STATED IN THE MOTION.

Appellees motion to dismiss (a significant and dispositive request) reads in its entirety as

follows:

See MOTION TO DISMISS (Exhibit “A). As one can see, there is no substantive argument and only

three (3) conclusory headings. The final sentence of the Motion to Dismiss reads: “Appellee will

rely on the attached Brief and Affidavit with Exhibits.” Id.

Unfortunately, there is no attached brief, no attached affidavit, and no attached exhibits.

By its own definition, the motion is deficient, because there is nothing attached to “rely” upon.

The motion should be denied and appellee should, at a minimum be required to re-file the motion

with the correct brief and affidavits.

2. THE MOTION FAILS BECAUSE IT SEEKS RELIEF IDENTICAL TO THAT SOUGHT IN APELLEE’S RESPONSIVE BRIEF ON THE MERITS.

Attached hereto as Exhibit B is “Appellee’s Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss

Appeal” which was filed six (6) days before the “Motion to Dismiss.” Although it appears to be

a brief in support of the instant motion, it is not. It cannot be. It was filed 6 days before the

motion to dismiss and on the day that the Appellee’s Brief was due. It was not accompanied by

any motion. See APPELLEE’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL (Exhibit “B”);

see also, ORDER SETTING JUNE 12 BRIEF DEADLINE (Exhibit “C”). The June 12, filing is

Appellee’s brief on the merits. Not only was it filed on June 12, it was not accompanied by a

motion. Moreover, the undersigned was informed today by the Court of Appeals deputy clerk

that the June 12 filing has been lodged as “Appellee’s Brief” and that the undersigned should

treat it as such and file a reply brief before the expiration of 20 days from June 12th. See

AFFIDAVIT OF DEBRA JENNINGS REGARDING CLERK CONFERENCE (Exhibit “D). The online case

information page also confirms this by showing the June 12 filing under the heading of “Briefs,”

and not “Case Events”. See 14TH COURT OF APPEALS ONLINE CASE INFORMATION PAGE (Exhibit

“E”). Most importantly, this Court issued an order on June 12, acknowledging that “Appellee’s

Brief” had been filed on that day and that the Reply Brief was due 20 days from June 12. See

ORDER ON REPLY DATE (Exhibit “F”).

A close examination of “Appellee’s Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss Appeal”

shows that it makes (albeit with more complete discussion) the same exact arguments that are in

the instant “motion.” Compare APPELLEE’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

(Exhibit “B”) with MOTION TO DISMISS (Exhibit “A).

Because the “motion” requests a complete disposition of the Appeal (dismissal) a full

panel of judges will be required to rule on it. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.4 (“…in a civil case, a

single justice should not do the following: … (2) dismiss or otherwise determine an appeal or a

motion for rehearing.”). Thus, it would be a waste of judicial resources to empanel 3 justices

only to determine that the motion lacks proper form and exhibits, when the better drafted request

on the same grounds has already been filed as a brief on the merits and is awaiting a reply brief

and a 3 justice panel. Because the same arguments have been filed as a brief on the merits,

denial of the instant motion on technical grounds will not prejudice Appellee. The same

arguments will be heard when the court convenes on the merits. The motion should be denied

as duplicative.

3. THE COURT SHOULD ORDER APPELLANT TO RE-FILE HER BRIEF TO AVOID SUBSTANTIAL PROCEDURAL CONFUSION.

A. THE CLERKS RECORD IS INCOMPLETE.

Attached as Exhibit “G” are pages 36 and 37 of the Clerk’s Record filed in this case. As

one can see, the affidavit beginning on page 36 is cut off and incomplete. CLERK’S RECORD

SELECTED PAGES (Exhibit “G”). The actual affidavit has another page. See COMPLETE

AFFIDAVIT (Exhibit “H”). This affidavit is one a crucial exhibit to appellant’s brief that did not

make it into the Clerk’s Record. The undersigned has requested by letter that the Clerk below supplement the record to include the complete affidavit and a number of other critical

documents. See LETTER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTATION OF CLERK’S RECORD (Exhibit “I”).

B. THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF IS IN NEED OF REVISION

Admittedly, Appellant’s Brief was not well written. It was prepared in the midst of

intense settlement negotiations and proceedings in the lower court. It needs to be amended and

supplemented. The undersigned takes full responsibility. Appellant has asked by way motion

for an extension for time in which to file her Reply Brief. In doing so appellant intends to

supplement or amend the originally filed brief. See MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO FILE

SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF (Exhibit “J”). The rules allow such supplementation. Texas Rule

of Appellate Procedure 38.7 states that “A brief may be amended or supplemented whenever

justice requires, on whatever reasonable terms the court may prescribe.” See Tex. R. App. P.

38.7. Rule 38.9 suggests that such corrections should be allowed and the case should only be

dismissed for briefing defects on the filing of a second defective brief:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Debra v. Jennings, Esq. and Debra v. Jennings, P.L.L.C. v. American Asset Finance, L.L.C., (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Debra v. Jennings, Esq. and Debra v. Jennings, P.L.L.C. v. American Asset Finance, L.L.C. (Debra v. Jennings, Esq. and Debra v. Jennings, P.L.L.C. v. American Asset Finance, L.L.C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sclafani v. Sclafani
870 S.W.2d 608 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Tri-Steel Structures, Inc. v. Hackman
883 S.W.2d 391 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Tanner v. McCarthy
274 S.W.3d 311 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Mitchim v. Mitchim
518 S.W.2d 362 (Texas Supreme Court, 1975)
Malone v. Emmert Industrial Corp.
858 S.W.2d 547 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Bolling v. Farmers Branch Independent School District
315 S.W.3d 893 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)
Walnut Equipment Leasing Co. v. Wen Lung Wu
920 S.W.2d 285 (Texas Supreme Court, 1996)