Jeanette Jimmerson of the Texas Military Department – Texas State Guard; Darren Fitzgerald of the Texas State Military – Texas State Guard; Joe Cave of the Texas Military Department – Texas State Guard; And Texas Military Department – Texas State Guard v. San Juanita Medeles

Opinion

ACCEPTED 15-25-00119-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/6/2025 8:07 PM NO.15-25-00119-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK FILED IN 15th COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS ) 8/6/2025 8:07:15 PM IN THE JEANETTE JIMMERSON OF THE TEXAS CHRISTOPHER FIFTEENTH A. PRINE MILITARY -TEXAS STATE GUARD, Clerk COURT OF DARREN FITZGERALD OF THE TEXAS APPEAL MILITARY - TEXAS STATE GUARD, JOE CAVE OF THE TEXAS MILITARY DEPARTMENT -TEXAS STATE GUARD and TEXAS MILITARY DEPARTMENT -TEXAS STATE GUARD Appellants V. ) SAN JUANITA MEDELES ) OF TRAVIS Appellee COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT:

I. Introduction and Grounds for Relief

Appellee, San Juanita Medeles, respectfully requests leave pursuant to the inherent authority of this Court and in accordance with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.3 and 38.7, permitting the filing of additional briefs when justice so requires. Good cause exists for this relief because Appellants, for the first time in their Reply Brief filed on August 5, 2025, raise new legal theories, introduce novel factual assertions, and mischaracterize both the procedural history and Appellee’s positions, precluding Appellee from responding to those arguments in her previous briefing

II. New Issues and Inaccuracies in Appellants’ Reply Brief

The newly raised matters and material misrepresentations in Appellants’ Reply Brief include, but are not limited to:

​ •​ Presentation of a previously unasserted and unsupported mootness theory;

​ •​ Mischaracterizations of the procedural history;

​ •​ Incorrect claims that Appellee failed to reference admissible or recorded evidence of record;

​ •​ Inaccurate framing of Appellee’s claims under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (“UDFA:).

As these contentions were not set forth in Appellants’ initial brief, Appellee has not had an opportunity to fully address or rebut them prior to the Reply. It is fundamental to fair process that a party should have the opportunity to respond to new arguments or mischaracterizations first raised in a reply, so as to allow this Court to resolve the issues on a complete and accurate record.

III. Imminent Trial Court Proceedings

Appellee further advises the Court that a hearing in the trial court is currently scheduled for August 28, 2025, directly concerning matters at issue in this appeal. An expedited ruling based solely upon Appellants’ belated arguments risks encroaching upon the trial court’s jurisdiction and may unduly prejudice Appellee’s procedural posture in the ongoing proceedings below.

IV. Need for a Complete Record

Appellee is actively reviewing and assembling documents and orders from the underlying trial court case to ensure a correct and complete presentation of the record for this Court’s review. Appellee’s anticipated Sur-Reply Brief will directly address and clarify the record as to the new issues presented in Appellants’ Reply.

V. Request for Reasonable Filing Period

In the interest of fairness and judicial economy, Appellee respectfully requests that she be permitted to file her Sur-Reply Brief within seven (7) business days of an order granting this Motion, or such shorter period as the Court may direct..

IV. Prayer

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellee respectfully prays that this Court:

​ 1.​ GRANT for Appellee to file a Sur-Reply Brief in response to newly raised arguments in Appellants’ Reply Brief; and

​ 2.​ ORDER that Appellee may file said Sur-Reply Brief within seven (7) business days of the granting of this motion, or within such time as the Court deems just; and

3.​ GRANT such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Appellee may show herself justly entitled.

Dated: August 6th, 2025

Respectfully submitted,

TARA P. ENAHORO, ESQ.

TPC Enahoro Law Group, PLLC

1642 Crescent Drive

Tarrytown, NY 10591

Tel: (212) 470-4080

tara@tpcenahorolaw.com

Texas Bar No. 24136188

Attorney for Appellee, San Juanita Medeles

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on August 6, 2025, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply Brief was served via the Court’s electronic filing system on:

Denver Burris

Assistant Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station

Austin, TX 78711-2548

denver.burris@oag.texas.gov

Counsel for Appellants

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3), I certify that this motion contains 686 words, excluding the caption, signature blocks, certificates, and headings. This document complies with the type-volume limitation and formatting requirements under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

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.

Tara Enahoro on behalf of TARA ENAHORO Bar No. 24136188 tara@tpcenahorolaw.com Envelope ID: 104072649 Filing Code Description: Motion Filing Description: Motion Status as of 8/7/2025 7:09 AM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Michelle Norred michelle.norred@oag.texas.gov 8/6/2025 8:07:15 PM SENT

Denver Burris Denver.Burris@oag.texas.gov 8/6/2025 8:07:15 PM SENT

denver burris denver.burris@oag.texas.gov 8/6/2025 8:07:15 PM SENT

Tara Enohoro tara@tpcenahorolaw.com 8/6/2025 8:07:15 PM SENT

Tara Peaches Enahoro tara@tpcenahorolaw.com 8/6/2025 8:07:15 PM SENT