J & J Container Manufacturing, Inc. v. Cintas- R. U.S., L.P.

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in J & J Container Manufacturing, Inc. v. Cintas- R. U.S., L.P.. Read the opinion of the Court — 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 1792
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided March 12, 2015·No. 01-14-00933-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 01-14-00933-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/12/2015 4:56:06 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK

FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/12/2015 4:56:06 PM 01-14-00933-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk IN THE

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

at Houston, Texas

J & J CONTAINER MANUFACTURING, INC.

Appellant

v.

CINTAS - R. U.S., L.P.

Appellee

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 3 Harris County, Texas 1044425

APPELLEE’S BRIEF in response to RESTRICTED APPEAL 01-14-00933-CV

IN THE

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 3, Harris County, Texas 1044425

J & J Container Manufacturing, Inc. Appellant 1526 DeSoto Houston, Texas 77081

M. Robert Garcia Attorney for Appellant SBN:07639150 405 Main Street, Suite 300 Houston, Texas 77002

Cintas -R. U.S. L.P. Appellee Houston, TX

Allen D. Russell Trial Counsel for Appellee Taylor Taylor & Russell 815 Walker, Suite 250 Houston, Texas 77002- 5764

i TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

PARTY INFORMATION SHEET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

ORAL ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

ISSUES PRESENTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

STATEMENT OF FACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

PRAYER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE

1. BMG Direct Mktg. V. Peake, 178 S.W. 3d 763,769 (Tex. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2. Campus Invs., Inc. V. Cullever, 144 S.W. 3d 464, 466 (Tex. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3. Employees Finance Co. v. Lathram, 369 S.W .2d, 927, 930 (Tex. 1963) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4. Guajardo v. Alamo Lumber Co., 317 S.W.2d, 725 (Tex. 1958) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

5. Highland Church of Christ v. Powell, 640 S.W. 2d 235, 236 (Tex. 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

6. Maan v. First ATM, Inc., 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 9279 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

7. Marshall v. Housing Auth. of San Antonio, 198 S.W. 3d 782,787 (Tex. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

8. Orgoo, Inc. V. Rackspace U.S., Inc., 341 S.W. 3d 34, 39 (Tex. App. - San Antonio 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

9. Otto v. Rau Petroleum Products, 582 S.W.2d, 504(Tex. Civ. App.-Houston[1st Dist.] 1979, no writ) . . . . . . . . . . . 4

ii 10. R.G. McClung Cottonn Co. V. Cotton Concentration Co., 479 S.W. 2d 733,743 (Tex. Civ. App - Dallas 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

STATUTES PAGE

1. Bus. Orgs. Code §§ 5.251 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. §5.201 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3. Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. §5.251 (1)(B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,6

iii NO. 14-12-00933-CV

IN THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS ___________________________________________________________________________

J & J CONTAINER MANUFACTURING, INC. Appellant

CINTAS - R.U.S., L.P. Appellee

On appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 3, Harris County, Texas ______________________________________________________________________________

APPELLEE’S BRIEF ______________________________________________________________________________

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellee, Cintas-R.U.S., L.P. files this its Appellee’s Brief as follows:

I.

ORAL ARGUMENT

Appellee does not request oral argument.

II.

ISSUES PRESENTED

REPLY POINT 1: The pending appeal is moot due to the Appellant’s payment of the judgment, and Appellee’s issuance of a Full and Final Release of Judgment and Judgment Lien.

REPLY POINT 2: The record reflects the Appellant’s failure to maintain a registered agent for service of process and a registered office, thus the secretary of state was an agent for service of process for the corporation. III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

As reflected in the Texas Secretary of State, John Steen’s Business Organizations Inquiry

page from November 25, 2013, Appellant, J&J Container Manufacturing, Inc. (“Appellant”) had

listed as its Registered Agent, “Anthony Lewis Cook” at “6124 W. Little York, Houston, Tx.

77091 USA.” (Appendix 1) When pre-suit certified and regular demand letters from Appellee,

Cintas-R.U.S., L.P. (“Appellee”) came back from the registered address as “not deliverable,” it

was clear that Appellant had failed to maintain a registered agent in Texas as required.

(Appendix 2) Therefore, Appellee served the Texas Secretary of State under Section 5.251 of the

Texas Business Organizations Code. The return from the Secretary of State, which is in the

Record (CR 16) reflects that the Citation was sent to the registered address on April 7, 2014, and

was returned as “Not Deliverable As Addressed.” On June 3, 2014, Appellee was awarded a

Default Judgment against Appellant. Notice of the judgment was mailed by the trial court to the

Appellant at its registered address on June 3, 2014, and again it was returned as “Not deliverable

as addressed.” (SCR 8-9)

Appellee mailed post-judgment discovery to the Appellant at the address where service

had been rendered, 1526 DeSoto, Houston, Texas 77091, on July 11, 1014. (Appendix 3)

Appellant did not object, appeal, seek court protection, supersede or respond in any way. In late

August 2014, a deputy with the Harris Count Constable’s office made demand at the DeSoto

address, and Appellant voluntarily paid an amount in excess of $17,488.05 to the deputy

constable. On September 9, 2014, Harris County issued payment to Appellee’s attorney in the

amount of $17,488.05. (Appendix 4). On September 24, 2014, having heard nothing further

Page -2- from Appellant, Appellee issued and mailed a Full and Final Release of Judgment and Judgment

Lien to the DeSoto address. (Appendix 5)

IV. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

Because Appellant voluntarily paid the judgment, this appeal is moot, and there is not a

justiciable dispute to be considered or ruled upon by this Court. Moreover, because Appellant

failed to maintain a registered agent for service of process and a registered office, the secretary of

state was an agent for service of process for the corporation and service was proper.

V. ARGUMENT

REPLY POINT 1: The pending appeal is moot due to the Appellant’s payment of the judgment, and Appellee’s issuance of a Full and Final Release of Judgment and Judgment Lien.

As the documents in the Appendix reflect, the Appellant voluntarily paid the amount of the

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

J & J Container Manufacturing, Inc. v. Cintas- R. U.S., L.P., (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

J & J Container Manufacturing, Inc. v. Cintas- R. U.S., L.P. (J & J Container Manufacturing, Inc. v. Cintas- R. U.S., L.P.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Campus Investments, Inc. v. Cullever
144 S.W.3d 464 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
BMG Direct Marketing, Inc. v. Peake
178 S.W.3d 763 (Texas Supreme Court, 2005)
Marshall v. Housing Authority of San Antonio
198 S.W.3d 782 (Texas Supreme Court, 2006)
Otto v. Rau Petroleum Products
582 S.W.2d 504 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1979)
R. G. McClung Cotton Co. v. Cotton Concentration Co.
479 S.W.2d 733 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Employees Finance Company v. Lathram
369 S.W.2d 927 (Texas Supreme Court, 1963)
Guajardo v. Alamo Lumber Company
317 S.W.2d 725 (Texas Supreme Court, 1958)
Highland Church of Christ v. Powell
640 S.W.2d 235 (Texas Supreme Court, 1982)
Orgoo, Inc. v. Rackspace US, Inc.
341 S.W.3d 34 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2011)