Eue J. Jeong v. Texas Greenovation, LLC
Opinion
ACCEPTED
03-14-00820-CV
5443912
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
5/28/2015 1:08:39 AM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
No. 03-14-00820-CV
FILED IN
3rd COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS 5/28/2015 1:08:39 AM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
Clerk
EUE J. JEONG,
Appellant,
v.
TEXAS GREENOVATION, LLC,
Appellee.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. C-1-CV-14-008244
APPELLEE’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING APPELLANT’S BRIEF
Dr. J. Hyde Texas Bar No. 24027083 THE J. HYDE LAW OFFICE, PLLC 111 E. 17th Street #12015 Austin, TX 78711 Telephone: (512) 200-4080 Fax: (512) 582-8295 E-mail: jhyde@jhydelaw.com
Counsel for Appellee
No. 03-14-00820-CV
IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS
EUE J. JEONG,
Appellant,
v.
TEXAS GREENOVATION, LLC,
Appellee.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. C-1-CV-14-008244
APPELLEE’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING APPELLANT’S BRIEF
TO THE HONORABLE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS:
Appellee Texas Greenovation, LLC, by and through undersigned counsel,
respectfully responds in opposition to Appellant Eue J. Jeong’s Motion to Extend
Time to File Appellant’s Brief, and in support thereof states as follows:
1. This straightforward case involves the appeal of a final judgment in a
forcible detainer action granting Texas Greenovation immediate possession of real
property following Texas Greenovation’s purchase of the property at a foreclosure
sale.1
2. After Appellant Jeong failed to make arrangements for a reporter’s
record to be prepared and filed despite a notice from the Court, the Court set a
deadline of 30 April 2015 for Jeong to file his brief. Ignoring that deadline, Jeong
waited until the Court sent him a notice of late brief to file the underlying motion
for extension on 20 May 2015.
3. Without explaining the delay to date, Jeong now seeks an additional
110 days to file his brief, vaguely asserting that he will be traveling due to family
matters. He notably gives no further details.
4. Jeong also contends that the issues in the appeal are “complex” and
references another pending case involving JPMorgan Chase Bank. To the contrary,
the issues are simple and well settled. Jeong, the former owner of foreclosed
property, has brought suit challenging the foreclosure and is attempting to use the
issues raised in that suit to challenge the underlying eviction. (See CR 68-77). But
the foreclosure challenges in the title suit are irrelevant to and have no effect on
Texas Greenovation’s right to possession of the property, which is the only issue in
1 There are two separate appeals from the same underlying judgment docketed in this Court: the underlying appeal, docketed as Cause No. 03-14-00820-CV, and another appeal docketed as Cause No. 03-14-00715-CV. The clerk’s records in the two appeals are also identical. It appears that the reason for the two appeals in this Court is that Jeong filed two notices of appeal of the same judgment in the trial court, although only one of those notices is in the clerk’s record. (CR 132).
this forcible detainer action. E.g., Wilder v. Citicorp Trust Bank, F.S.B., No. 03-
13-00324-CV, 2014 WL 1207979 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 18, 2014, pet. dism’d
w.o.j.) (mem. op.) (noting that this Court “has consistently held that defects in the
foreclosure process cannot be used either to negate a landlord-tenant relationship
provision in a deed of trust or to raise a question of title depriving the justice or
county courts of jurisdiction to resolve the question of immediate possession”).
5. Finally, Jeong’s assertion in his motion for extension that undersigned
counsel does not oppose the motion is false. Jeong texted the undersigned
regarding the relief requested in the motion, and the undersigned texted Jeong that
he opposed the motion.
6. Jeong’s request for any extension of time, but particularly the lengthy
110-day extension he seeks, is unsupported. To date, Jeong has shown no interest
in complying with deadlines and should not be rewarded with additional time.
Jeong’s request is also futile because his appeal is frivolous under well-settled law
in this area. Finally, Jeong misrepresented the unopposed nature of the motion.
WHEREFORE, Texas Greenovation respectfully requests that the Court
DENY Appellant’s Motion to Extend Time for Filing Appellant’s Brief.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ J. Hyde
Dr. J. Hyde State Bar No. 24027083 THE J. HYDE LAW OFFICE, PLLC 111 E. 17th Street #12015 Austin, Texas 78711 Phone: (512) 200-4080 Fax: (512) 582-8295 E-mail: jhyde@jhydelaw.com
Attorney for Appellee
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5, a copy of Appellee’s Response to Motion to Extend Time for Filing Appellant’s Brief was served on this 28th day of May, 2015, via email, upon the following:
Eue J. Jeong 2900 Sunridge Dr. #713 Austin, TX 78741 Email: Ejeong1@gmail.com
/s/ J. Hyde
Dr. J. Hyde
EXHIBIT 1 Text Messages Between Eue Jeong and J. Hyde !
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Eue J. Jeong v. Texas Greenovation, LLC (Eue J. Jeong v. Texas Greenovation, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.