ACCEPTED FILED 13-13-00717-CV THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS IN THE 13TH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI 2/9/2015 10:33:31 PM DORIAN RAMIREZ 2/9/15 CLERK
DORIAN E. RAMIREZ, CLERK CASE NO. 13-13-00717-CV BY dtello
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE RECEIVED IN 13th COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS AT CORPUS CHRISTI–EDINBURG,2/9/2015 TEXAS 10:33:31 PM DORIAN E. RAMIREZ Clerk DOUGLAS MICHAEL BULTHUIS, Appellant
vs.
JOSE JUAN (J.J.) AVILA, Appellee
APPEAL FROM CAUSE NUMBER C-620-07-G th JUDGE NOE GONZALEZ, PRESIDING
APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF
Ronald G. Hole State Bar No. 09834200
HOLE & ALVAREZ, L.L.P. 612 W. Nolana Loop, Ste 370 P.O. Box 720547 McAllen, Texas 78504 Telephone: (956) 631-2891 Telecopier: (956) 631-2415 E-Mail: Mail@HoleAlvarez.com
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED February 9, 2015 CASE NO. 13-13-00717-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT CORPUS CHRISTI–EDINBURG, TEXAS
DOUGLAS MICHAEL BULTHUIS, Appellant
vs.
JOSE JUAN (J.J.) AVILA, Appellee
APPEAL FROM CAUSE NUMBER C-620-07-G th JUDGE NOE GONZALEZ, PRESIDING
APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF
Ronald G. Hole State Bar No. 09834200
HOLE & ALVAREZ, L.L.P. 612 W. Nolana Loop, Ste 370 P.O. Box 720547 McAllen, Texas 78504 Telephone: (956) 631-2891 Telecopier: (956) 631-2415 E-Mail: Mail@HoleAlvarez.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Index of Authorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Summary of Reply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Reply.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A. Appellant Did Not Bring Forth a Partial Record.. . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. Appellee Apparently Concedes That it was Improper for Trial Court to Consider Only a Partial Record.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
C. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Prayer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Certificate of Compliance .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Certificate of Service.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
-ii- INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases: Page
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Tanner v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 289 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,5
Tiller v. McLure, 121 S.W.3d 709 (Tex. 2003).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Rules & Statutes
Rule 38.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
-iii- CASE NO. 13-13-00717-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT CORPUS CHRISTI–EDINBURG, TEXAS
DOUGLAS MICHAEL BULTHUIS, Appellant
vs.
JOSE JUAN (J.J.) AVILA, Appellee
APPEAL FROM CAUSE NUMBER C-620-07-G th JUDGE NOE GONZALEZ, PRESIDING
APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW DOUGLAS MICHAEL BULTHUIS, Appellant in the
above-entitled and numbered cause, and pursuant to Rule 38.3 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure, files this his Reply Brief, and for such brief
would respectfully show unto this Honorable Court as follows:
A P P E LLAN T ’S R E P LY BR IE F PAGE 1 OF 7 I.
SUMMARY OF REPLY
The issue before this Court is simple. Can a trial court set aside a jury’s
verdict, and render a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, based upon “a tiny
fraction of the record” or “a mere fraction of the testimony from this multi-day
trial?” The short answer is: no.
II.
REPLY
A. Appellant Did Not Bring Forth a Partial Record
Although Appellee asserts that Appellant brought forth a partial
reporter’s record, such is not the case. This is not an appeal of a final
judgment that incorporates the findings of the jury in its verdict. This is an
appeal of a trial judge, based upon a very limited amount of trial testimony,
rendering a judgment that Appellant only recover $10.00. This case is more
akin to a summary judgment, where an appeal is based upon the summary
judgment evidence, and the arguments of counsel are irrelevant to whether
the trial court was correct in its ruling, based upon the summary judgment
evidence.
A P P E LLAN T ’S R E P LY BR IE F PAGE 2 OF 7 In the instant case, as noted in Appellant’s Brief, the trial court’s ruling
was not based upon the entire record, instead it was
[b]ased upon the Court’s consideration of the verdict and the post-verdict briefing, exhibits, and arguments submitted by the parties . . . .
(Emphasis added) C.R. p. 54. As such, the only relevant record to bring forth
would be the verdict and the record that was reviewed by the trial court in
making its determination that Appellant only recover $10.00. This Appellant
did. Any additional materials would not be relevant to the appeal.
B. Appellee Apparently Concedes That it was Improper for Trial Court to Consider Only a Partial Record
Appellee admits that “a mere 20 pages of hundreds of pages of
[Bulthuis’] testimony recorded at trial . . .” were presented to the trial court by
Appellee as exhibits to post-judgment motions and briefing. Appellee’s Brief,
p. 2. These are the same exhibits and briefing that the trial court relied upon,
when it set aside the jury’s verdict.1 Appellee also notes, in numerous places
in his brief, that “a mere fraction of the testimony from this multi-day trial . . .
” (Appellee’s Brief, p. 2); “a tiny fraction of the record – a mere 20 or so pages
. The trial court’s order indicates that, other than exhibits and briefing, 1
the only other influence on the trial judge in making his decision, was “arguments” of counsel. C.R. p. 54. Obviously, a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be based upon the record of the evidence, not arguments of counsel. A P P E LLAN T ’S R E P LY BR IE F PAGE 3 OF 7 of Bulthuis’s hundreds of pages of testimony” (Appellee’s Brief, p. 7); a small
part of the evidence presented at trial (Id.); not having “the benefit of a
complete record of the trial testimony and evidence in this matter”
(Appellee’s Brief, p. 12); and “exhibits attached to Avilia’s JNOV motion
[consisting] simply of excerpts of trial testimony offered to highlight arguments
in the motion” (Appellee’s Brief, p. 16); would not be sufficient for this Court
(or even the trial court) to review in order to determine if there was legally
sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Appellee’s Brief, pp. 2, 7, 12
and 16.
Appellee correctly sets out the requirement for a judgment
notwithstanding the verdict. In reviewing a JNOV, a trial court should conduct
a legal sufficiency analysis of the evidence—the same test a court would
apply to a no-evidence challenge. See Tanner v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
ACCEPTED FILED 13-13-00717-CV THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS IN THE 13TH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI 2/9/2015 10:33:31 PM DORIAN RAMIREZ 2/9/15 CLERK
DORIAN E. RAMIREZ, CLERK CASE NO. 13-13-00717-CV BY dtello
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE RECEIVED IN 13th COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS AT CORPUS CHRISTI–EDINBURG,2/9/2015 TEXAS 10:33:31 PM DORIAN E. RAMIREZ Clerk DOUGLAS MICHAEL BULTHUIS, Appellant
vs.
JOSE JUAN (J.J.) AVILA, Appellee
APPEAL FROM CAUSE NUMBER C-620-07-G th JUDGE NOE GONZALEZ, PRESIDING
APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF
Ronald G. Hole State Bar No. 09834200
HOLE & ALVAREZ, L.L.P. 612 W. Nolana Loop, Ste 370 P.O. Box 720547 McAllen, Texas 78504 Telephone: (956) 631-2891 Telecopier: (956) 631-2415 E-Mail: Mail@HoleAlvarez.com
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED February 9, 2015 CASE NO. 13-13-00717-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT CORPUS CHRISTI–EDINBURG, TEXAS
DOUGLAS MICHAEL BULTHUIS, Appellant
vs.
JOSE JUAN (J.J.) AVILA, Appellee
APPEAL FROM CAUSE NUMBER C-620-07-G th JUDGE NOE GONZALEZ, PRESIDING
APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF
Ronald G. Hole State Bar No. 09834200
HOLE & ALVAREZ, L.L.P. 612 W. Nolana Loop, Ste 370 P.O. Box 720547 McAllen, Texas 78504 Telephone: (956) 631-2891 Telecopier: (956) 631-2415 E-Mail: Mail@HoleAlvarez.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Index of Authorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Summary of Reply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Reply.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A. Appellant Did Not Bring Forth a Partial Record.. . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. Appellee Apparently Concedes That it was Improper for Trial Court to Consider Only a Partial Record.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
C. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Prayer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Certificate of Compliance .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Certificate of Service.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
-ii- INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases: Page
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Tanner v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 289 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,5
Tiller v. McLure, 121 S.W.3d 709 (Tex. 2003).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Rules & Statutes
Rule 38.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
-iii- CASE NO. 13-13-00717-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT CORPUS CHRISTI–EDINBURG, TEXAS
DOUGLAS MICHAEL BULTHUIS, Appellant
vs.
JOSE JUAN (J.J.) AVILA, Appellee
APPEAL FROM CAUSE NUMBER C-620-07-G th JUDGE NOE GONZALEZ, PRESIDING
APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW DOUGLAS MICHAEL BULTHUIS, Appellant in the
above-entitled and numbered cause, and pursuant to Rule 38.3 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure, files this his Reply Brief, and for such brief
would respectfully show unto this Honorable Court as follows:
A P P E LLAN T ’S R E P LY BR IE F PAGE 1 OF 7 I.
SUMMARY OF REPLY
The issue before this Court is simple. Can a trial court set aside a jury’s
verdict, and render a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, based upon “a tiny
fraction of the record” or “a mere fraction of the testimony from this multi-day
trial?” The short answer is: no.
II.
REPLY
A. Appellant Did Not Bring Forth a Partial Record
Although Appellee asserts that Appellant brought forth a partial
reporter’s record, such is not the case. This is not an appeal of a final
judgment that incorporates the findings of the jury in its verdict. This is an
appeal of a trial judge, based upon a very limited amount of trial testimony,
rendering a judgment that Appellant only recover $10.00. This case is more
akin to a summary judgment, where an appeal is based upon the summary
judgment evidence, and the arguments of counsel are irrelevant to whether
the trial court was correct in its ruling, based upon the summary judgment
evidence.
A P P E LLAN T ’S R E P LY BR IE F PAGE 2 OF 7 In the instant case, as noted in Appellant’s Brief, the trial court’s ruling
was not based upon the entire record, instead it was
[b]ased upon the Court’s consideration of the verdict and the post-verdict briefing, exhibits, and arguments submitted by the parties . . . .
(Emphasis added) C.R. p. 54. As such, the only relevant record to bring forth
would be the verdict and the record that was reviewed by the trial court in
making its determination that Appellant only recover $10.00. This Appellant
did. Any additional materials would not be relevant to the appeal.
B. Appellee Apparently Concedes That it was Improper for Trial Court to Consider Only a Partial Record
Appellee admits that “a mere 20 pages of hundreds of pages of
[Bulthuis’] testimony recorded at trial . . .” were presented to the trial court by
Appellee as exhibits to post-judgment motions and briefing. Appellee’s Brief,
p. 2. These are the same exhibits and briefing that the trial court relied upon,
when it set aside the jury’s verdict.1 Appellee also notes, in numerous places
in his brief, that “a mere fraction of the testimony from this multi-day trial . . .
” (Appellee’s Brief, p. 2); “a tiny fraction of the record – a mere 20 or so pages
. The trial court’s order indicates that, other than exhibits and briefing, 1
the only other influence on the trial judge in making his decision, was “arguments” of counsel. C.R. p. 54. Obviously, a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be based upon the record of the evidence, not arguments of counsel. A P P E LLAN T ’S R E P LY BR IE F PAGE 3 OF 7 of Bulthuis’s hundreds of pages of testimony” (Appellee’s Brief, p. 7); a small
part of the evidence presented at trial (Id.); not having “the benefit of a
complete record of the trial testimony and evidence in this matter”
(Appellee’s Brief, p. 12); and “exhibits attached to Avilia’s JNOV motion
[consisting] simply of excerpts of trial testimony offered to highlight arguments
in the motion” (Appellee’s Brief, p. 16); would not be sufficient for this Court
(or even the trial court) to review in order to determine if there was legally
sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Appellee’s Brief, pp. 2, 7, 12
and 16.
Appellee correctly sets out the requirement for a judgment
notwithstanding the verdict. In reviewing a JNOV, a trial court should conduct
a legal sufficiency analysis of the evidence—the same test a court would
apply to a no-evidence challenge. See Tanner v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins.
Co., 289 S.W.3d 828, 830 (Tex. 2009); City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d
802, 823 (Tex. 2005). In applying the no-evidence standard, courts consider
the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict and indulge every
reasonable inference that would support it. City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 822;
Tiller v. McLure, 121 S.W.3d 709, 713 (Tex. 2003). Courts will credit favorable
evidence only if a reasonable juror could, and will disregard contrary evidence
A P P E LLAN T ’S R E P LY BR IE F PAGE 4 OF 7 unless a reasonable juror could not. Tanner, 289 S.W.3d at 830. Appellee’s
Brief, p. 13.
Accordingly, Appellant and Appellee agree that neither the trial court nor
an appellate court should review only a small portion of the record in
connection with a JNOV. However, that is exactly what the trial court did, as
can be seen from the final judgment that the trial court (or Appellee’s counsel)
drafted and ultimately signed. The appellate record, on the other hand, brings
forth everything to this Court that the trial court reviewed in making its
decision to grant a JNOV. That is all that is necessary, and appropriate, as
matters not considered by the trial court would be irrelevant to the propriety
of granting the judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
C. Conclusions
A complete appellate record, for the alleged errors of the trial court, was
brought forward. The trial court failed to consider the entire record of the case
(which was heard some 16 months earlier), and erroneously based its JNOV
decision on a very limited, tiny fraction, of the record. This was error.
A P P E LLAN T ’S R E P LY BR IE F PAGE 5 OF 7 III.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant DOUGLAS
MICHAEL BULTHUIS prays that this Court remand this case to the trial court
with instructions that Appellant recover of and from Appellee Jose Juan (J.J.)
Avila the amount awarded in the jury’s verdict, together with prejudgement
interest, costs of Court and that this Court grant Appellant such other and
further relief to which he may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
HOLE & ALVAREZ, L.L.P. P. O. Box 720547 McAllen, Texas 78504 Telephone No.: (956) 631-2891 Telecopier No.: (956) 631-2415 E-Mail: Mail@HoleAlvarez.com
By: /s/ Ronald G. Hole Ronald G. Hole State Bar No. 09834200 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
In compliance with Tex.R.App.P. 9.4(i)(3), I, Ronald G. Hole, hereby certify that this Appellant’s Reply Brief, excluding the sections to be excluded, contains 936 words. I have relied on the word count of the computer program used to prepare this document, WordPerfect X3®
/s/ Ronald G. Hole Ronald G. Hole A P P E LLAN T ’S R E P LY BR IE F PAGE 6 OF 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Ronald G. Hole, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above Appellant’s Reply Brief has, on this the 9th day of February 2015, been served via electronic transfer through an online filing service, to the following counsel of record:
Attorneys for Appellee Juan Jose (J.J.) Avila Mr. R. Russell Hollenbeck Mr. Andrew C. Nelson Wright & Close, LLP One Riverway, Suite 2200 Houston, Texas 77056 E-Mail: hollenbeck@wrightclose.com E-Mail: nelson@wrigthclose.com
Mr. Francisco Rene Villarreal Garcia & Villarreal, L.L.P. 4311 North McColl Road McAllen, Texas 78502 E-Mail: panchov@gvlaw.net
Mr. Juan “Sonny” Palacios Palacios & Love 2720 West Canton, Suite B Edinburg, Texas 78539 E-Mail: palacioslove@sbcglobal.net /s/ Ronald G. Hole BCC:Avi-BUL\APP Ronald G. Hole
A P P E LLAN T ’S R E P LY BR IE F PAGE 7 OF 7