appellate court lacks jurisdiction over untimely appeal, and dismissal is proper remedy
How later courts described this case
- appellate court lacks jurisdiction over untimely appeal, and dismissal is proper remedy
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ACCEPTED
03-15-00141-CV
4624767
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
3/24/2015 3:41:17 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
NO. 03-15-00141-CV
FILED IN
3rd COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS 3/24/2015 3:41:17 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
AUSTIN, TEXAS Clerk
JOHN GREEN,
Appellant
v.
MEMORIAL PARK MEDICAL CENTER, INC.
Appellee
Appealed from 126th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas
APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
Oral Arguments Requested
Frederick F. Hoelke
Attorney at Law
State Bar No. 09775600
26545 IH-10 West
Boerne Texas 78006
fredhoelke@aol.com
(210)-444-0999 Telephone
(210)-787-3881 Facsimile
Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal For Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 42.3a of 1
the Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure
APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Comes Now, Appellee, Memorial Park Medical Center, Inc., and asks the
Court to dismiss Appellant John Green's appeal or, in the alternative, to affirm the
trial court's judgment.
RELIEF REQUESTED
Dismiss this appeal pursuant to Rule 42.3 a of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
INTRODUCTION
1. Appellant's name is John Green; Appellee's name is Memorial Park Medical
Center, Inc.
2. The 126th Court of Travis County, Texas signed the final judgment in the
underlying case: Memorial Park Medical Center, Inc. v. John Green, Cause No.
D-1-GN-14-000373 on March 13, 2014 in favor of Appellee and against Appellant.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
3. 126th District Court entered a Temporary Restraining Order against John
Green and his counsel on the 7th day of February, 2014.
4. A hearing was set by Appellant challenging the Temporary Restraining
Order and setting Appellants motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, Request
for Sanctions, and Motion to Transfer Venue for the 18th day of February 2014.
Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal For Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 42.Ja of 2
tlie Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure
5. All the appellant's motions were heard and vigorously disputed by the court;
however, no order denying the motions was entered. The trial court extended the
injunction to the hearing set on the 4th of March, 2014.
6. On the 4th day of March, 2014 the trial court heard the Appellant Green's
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, Request for Sanctions, Motion to
Transfer Venue and Motion to Reconsider.
7. After a full hearing, inclusive of exhaustive arguments of counsel, the 126th
District Court denied appellant Green's motions.
8. The trial court entered a final judgment on the 13th day of March, 2014 in
the form of a permanent injunction. A copy is attached as Exhibit 1. The trial
court's final judgment thereby resulted in preventing Defendant Green from
executing on its Abstract of Judgment.
9. On the 18th day of March, 2014 Appellee and Appellant both received a fax
from the office of the District Judges, 1261h District Court, which was a copy of
the final order entered on the 13th day of March, 2014.
10. On the 14th day of April 2014, Appellee, by oversight, filed an amended
petition urging a new cause of action; tortious interference with contract. This was
done without leave of court and 31 days after final judgment was entered.
11. In addition, the Appellee raised a claim under§ 12.02 of the Property Code.
However, this section is not a separate cause of action but is only a remedy
Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal For Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 42.3a of 3
the Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure
associated with Trespass To Try Title cases, Suits to Quiet Title and I or Slander of
Title. No cause of action had been filed by the Appellant herein while the trial
court still had jurisdiction.
12. If Appellant had filed a Motion for a New Trial during the first thirty (30)
days after the March 13th final judgment, the trial court would have maintained
jurisdiction for an additional 75 days. As no Motion was filed by the Appellant
during the thirty day period of time after final judgment, the remedy of filing a
motion for a new trial, had it been exercised, would have expired on the 27th of
May, 2014, when the court would have lost plenary power 75 days after the March
13, 2014 Final Judgment. Appellant did nothing until July 16, 2014 when
appellant filed a motion for summary judgment.
13. The trial court lost plenary power on the 27th of May, 2014.
14. Assuming for arguendo' s sake that the appellant was not notified of the
entry of the final order, his last date to file a motion for new trial or give notice of
appeal was July 11, 2014.
1
15. The appellant lost his ability to appeal this matter 30 days from the 90 h day
following the entry of the final appealable order March 13th 2014, pursuant to Rule
306 a (4) which was July 11, 2014.
16. Appellant Green failed to file a motion for new trial and/or notice of appeal by
the 11th day of July, 2014.
Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal For Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 42.Ja of 4
tlie Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure
17. On the 19th day of September 2014, Appellant Green, recognizing that a
final judgment had been entered, filed a motion to clarify order(s) or Defendant's
Motion For Judgment, Nunc Pro Tune. This was denied by the trial court on the
9th day of October and entered on the 30th day of October, 2014. A true and
correct copy is attached as Exhibit 2.
18. The effect being the trial court's recognition that March 13 1h, 2014 was in
fact the final judgment.
19. Yet another motion was filed by the Appellant on November. 10th, 2014
which was amended on the 22nd day of November 2014 and heard on the 9th day
of December. The relief requested was for an early appeal which was a
disingenuous way of asking the trial court to extend its plenary jurisdiction and
requesting a trial setting on the remaining issues in the case. The motion was
denied as to the early appeal.
20. Appellee, looking at its pleadings and the prior rulings of the trial court,
determined there was nothing left to try but in essence a remedy motion pursuant
to the Property Code § 12.00 et seq and decided to dismiss the pending remedy,
which it did February 2nd 2015.
21. Appellant, having never filed a request for affirmative relief and/or a cause
of action in the form of a counter claim during the time allotted by the Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure, did not have a justiciable cause for the trial court to determine.
Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal For Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 42.3a of 5
tlte Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure
22. On the 3rd day of February, 2015, Appellant Green, through his counsel,
sent a letter to the trial court requesting that the court clarify the order of dismissal.
See a true and correct copy which is attached as Exhibit 3
23. The trial court responded to Appellant Green's letter with a letter of its own,
dated February 18th, 2015; a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit
4. The trial court's letter states very clearly, because of the prior orders, that the
court cannot do anything and therefore reinforces the trial court's prior ruling that
there was a judgment rendered on the 13th of March, 2014 which has become final
and has never been timely challenged. Accordingly, any issues of contention
brought to the trial court after the court has lost its plenary powers become res
judicata.
24. Appellant, this year, has filed yet another two pleadings with the trial court;
one to modify a judgment and two to request findings of fact and conclusions of
law from this Court . These were not ruled on because the trial court had no
plenary jurisdiction.
25. Appellee attaches as Exhibit 5 an affidavit which authenticates the trial
court documents used to demonstrate the procedural history of this appeal.
ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES
26. The Court has the authority under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.3
(a) to dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal For Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 42.Ja of 6
tlie Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure
27. The court should dismiss the appeal because Appellant filed the notice of the
appeal after the deadline. See Eddins v. Borders,71 S.W.3d 368 371 (Tex. App.-
Tyler 2001, pet. Denied). It is now too late for Appellant to ask for an extension
under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.3 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a);
Verburg v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).
28. The court rendered a "final judgment" on March 13, 2014 in favor of
Appellee and against Appellant. The hearing on the permanent injunction is a full
trial of the issues in applicant's petition. Citizens State Bank v. Caney Investments,
746 S.W.2d 477, 478 (Tex. 1988). See Exhibit 1.
29. The court reaffirmed that a "final judgment" was rendered on March 13,
2014 pursuant to its October 30, 2014 Order Denying Defendant's Motion to
Clarify Orders or Defendant's Motion for Nunc Pro Tune. See Exhibit 2.
30. An untimely request for finding of fact and conclusions of law was filed by
Appellant on February 24, 2015.
31. The notice of appeal was due on April 14, 2014. A request to extend the
time to file the notice of appeal was not requested at any time by Appellant. This
Court should dismiss Appellant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In re K.A.F., 160
S.W.3d 923, 927 (Tex. 2005) (appellate court lacks jurisdiction over untimely
appeal, and dismissal is proper remedy); Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care System,
160 S.W.3d 559, 564 (Tex. 2005) (accord); see also, In re Estate of Padilla, 103
Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal For Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 42.Ja of 7
tlie Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure
S.W.3d 563, 566 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (untimely appeal
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction despite late notice of final judgment). It is now
too late for Appellant to ask for an extension under Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 26.3. TEX. R. APP. P. 4.2(a); Verburg! v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617
(Tex. 1997).
32. Appellant filed the notice of appeal on March 3, 2015, almost a year after
the deadline to file it and no request to extend the deadline was ever filed by
Appellant.
33. Anticipating the arguments of appellant to claim no notice with respect to
the final judgment, Appellee submits that even Texas Rules of Civil Procedure,
Rule 306a (4) bars the appeal.
34. This court should dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant
cannot confer jurisdiction upon this court nor can he survive the constraints of Rule
329 b and 306a (4) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
35. Appellee is entitled to damages for frivolous appeal under Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 45. The Court may assume that Appellant brought this appeal
solely for delay if it finds that Appellant prosecuted this appeal without observing
the minimal procedural requirements for an appeal. See Hennigan v. Hennigan,
677 S.W.2d 495, 496 (Tex. 1984); Compass Exploration, Inc. v. B-E Drilling, Co.,
60 S.W.3d 273, 279-80 (Tex. App.-Waco 2001, no. pet).
Appe/lee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal For Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 42.3a of 8
tlie Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure
CONCLUSION
36. Appellant has been informed repeatedly that a final judgment was rendered
on or about March 13, 2014, and as evident, all of Appellant's subsequent motions
have been denied with the trial court continuing to inform Appellant that a final
judgment had been rendered. Appellant has now continued his vexatious litigation
on appeal despite the fact that Appellant is attempting to file his appeal almost a
year past the deadline.
PRAYER
For these reasons, Appellee, Memorial Park Medical Center, Inc., prays that
this Court grant its motion to dismiss Appellant's appeal or, in the alternative, to
affirm the trial court's judgment and grant Appellee damages for a frivolous appeal
and grant Appellee judgment for costs.
Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal For Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 42.3a of 9
the Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure
Respectfully submitted,
26545 IH 10 West, Suite 100
Boerne, Texas 78006
(210) 444-0999 Telephone
(210) 444-0996 Facsimile
fredhoelke@aol.com
Attorney for Appellee
~ff~h'~
William W. Ruth '
1406 E. Main, Suite 200
Fredericksburg, TX 78624
325-642-9802 - Phone
325-641-0527 - Fax
Attorney for Appellee
1
Signed by permission
Appe/lee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal For Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 42.Ja of 10
the Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure
Certificate of Conference
I ce11ify that I have conferred with Appellant's counsel, Robert Reich, by
phone and have attempted in good faith to reach an agreement about the subject
matter of this motion. We have been unable to reach an agreement because Mr.
Reich believes that this court has jurisdiction over Mr. Green's appeal
~~
Certificate of Service
I ce11ify that on the 24 111 day of March, 2015, that I served, pursuant to rule
9.5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, a true and correct copy of this
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on Mr. Robert Reich, Counsel for John
Green the appellant via electronic mail and by facsimile.
Appel/ee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal For Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 42.3a of 11
tlze Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure
William Ruth 3256410527 p.3
William Ruth BK~Al13 PG139 3256410527 p.2
Notice sent:
Dlsp Parties~ -----r;---
Dtsp code: CVD I CLS
Redact pgs}r;-~ff-_:_-;;:;-:-7~
CAUSE NO. IJ..1-0N..14-000373
~"
Judle-~;;;-....-.- Cldk
.MEMORJAL PARK MEDICAL CENTER, INC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
§
vs. § ll6TH JUDICIAL COURT
§
JOHN GREEN § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER
~
:s m
0 )(
On the 4 111 day of Ma.rob, 2014, came to be considered Plaintiff's motion for pe~
·r:2'
"1ii c
injunction and Defendant~s motioos to dismiss for Jack of jurisdiction, request for sanctdii
cuO
s::. Cl»
transfer ofvenue, and mationfor reconsideration. The court after hearing arguments ofcounsel~~
""CS ......
considering the pleadings and 1he evidence was of the opinion that Plainti~s motion for permm:ii"P
injunction should be ~ted, and denied Defendant's mctions..
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DESCRIBED that Plaintifrs motion
for pennanenc injunction be granted, accordingly, and Dcfendant..s motions be denied.
-41v
SIGNED this f S day of March, 2014~
Exhibit 1
William Ruth 3256410527 p.2
w1111am t<uth DC BKt4309 PG430 3256410527 Fi"fr"' • _p.2
1 ..u In The District Coun
of Travis County, Texa 9
OCT 3 0 2014 NIL
At 3/l.f~ P.M
Amalla Rodrlguez-Mendoza?Cierk
CAUSE NO. D·l..GN-14-000373
MEMORIAL PARK MEDICAL CENTER. INC § IN THE DISTRICT CO'L"RT
§
§
vs. § 126TH .JUDICIAL COURT
§
JOHN GREEN § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
_ORDER DE~"YING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CLARIFY ORDERS OR
= DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NUC PRO TUNC
·On the 9th day of October, 2014: came to be considered Defendant's Motion to Clarify
Orders;or Defendant's Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro Tune as to the court's March 13, 2014 Order
which pennanen.tly enjoined Defendant from enforcing a writ of execution more fully described in
the Februaiy 7, 2014 injunction order. The court after hearing arguments of counsel and considering
the pl~ings and the evidence was of the opinion that Defendant's motion should be: Denied.
IT IS. THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DESCRIBED that Defendant,s
Moti~ to Clarify Orders or -~.anes Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro Tune be denied.
:SIGNED this 30 day of 0 ct- 2014.
Exhibit 2
To: Page 3 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office
ROBERT E. REICH
ATTORNEY AT LAW
309 N. Fisk Avenue
Brownwood: Texas 76801
Tele: 325-643-1569
Email: rereich@harrisbb.com Fax: 325-643-3105
February 4, 2015
Honorable Tim Sulak
Fax No. (512)854-9332
Re:·· Cause No. D-1-GN-14-000373, 126th Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas
Memorial Park Medical Center, Inc. v. John Green
Dear Judge Sulak:
The above styled and mentioned cause came on to be heard on the merits on
Monday, February 2, 2015. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss Texas Civil Practices &
Remedies Code §12.02 Remedy and Oaim For Tortious Interference at 11:22:07 a.m. on
February 2, 2015 and presented a copy to Defendant's counsel at the 2:00 p.m. hearing
that date. Upon the case being called, the court did not consider this motion and
Plaintiff announced "non-suit". The court accepted Plaintiff's announcement of non-
suit and dismissed the suit "as to all claims" as the record will bear out.
Plaintiff in its proposed order has misstated the facts and asked the court to
include erroneous findings. The order signed March 13, 2014 merely granted a
permanent injunction without any further specific detail which makes the order void
for failure to meet the requirements of TRCP 683 as pointed out to the court in the
hearing on the Motion to Clarify. A copy of the record of the March 4, 2014, hearing is
attached to show the order pronounced from the bench was not for a permanent
injunction but rather the injunction is extended. It would be an error for the order of
dismissal to have a finding that the March 13, 2014, order was a final judgment. It
would be inappropriate for the court to make findings as to the effect of the March 13,
2014 order as to timetables since there has been no trial on the merits in this case.
Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 12.02
Remedy and Oaim for Tortious Interference, though not considered by the court, must
be addressed to expose the attempt by Plaintiff to mislead the court by stating patently
false facts and facts which are not in evidence. The judgment of the 35th Judicial District
Court in Cause No. CV0904121 was not reversed by the Eastland Court of Appeals as
shown by the Mandate affirming the judgment as modified and attached as an exhibit
to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and hereto.
Exhibit 3
2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Firrn/ Reich Law Office
To: Page 4 of 23
The $19,000.00 payment of the judgment was not deposited into the escrow
account of Robert Reich and no court has ordered the funds to be returned to Plaintiff as
alleged, which are facts, outside the record, well known to William Ruth and Frederick
Hoelke as attorney for Plaintiff.
As stated earlier the order of March 13, 2014 does not restrain Defendant, John
Green, from executing on its abstract of judgment or any other act and could not have
been based on a non-existent reversal of the underlying judgment. All of these
assertions are a clear violation of the Texas Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 13.
The ultimate question presented in this suit was the validity of the Mechanic's
and Material Lien and the abstract of the final judgment in Cause No. CV0904121 in the
35u, District Court which are filed in the Real Property Records of Brown County, Texas.
This ultimate issue was not resolved by a trial on the merits and the court has accepted
Plaintiff's non-suit as to all claims, including the challenge to the validity of the
encumbrances on the 1.816 acre tract of land in the Taylor Smith Survey 600, Abstract
No. 821, City of Brownwood, Brown County, Texas, made the subject of this suit.
Defendant, John Green, submits the enclosed order of non-suit for entrv bv the
" -
court, a copy of which has been given to Plaintiff's counsel along with this letter.
I would welcome a telephone conference between the Court and Fred Hoelke
and myself if the Cowi desires to discuss the order.
Yours truly,
Robert E. Reich
RER/jm
cc: Fred Hoelke
Via Fax (210)444-0996
. . , ...........
.. .. .
·......... . .
To: Page 5 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office
NO. D-t..GN-14-000373
MEMORIAL PARK MEDICAL
CENTER, INC., Plaintiff, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
v. § 126th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
JOHN GREEN, Defendant § OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
ORDER FOR NON-SUIT
The Court considered the announcement for Non-Suit and Dismissal of all Claims
made in open court by Plaintiff, MEMORIAL PARK MEDICAL CENTER, INC. and finds
that the Non-Suit should be GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the. Motion for Non-Suit as to all claims,
including the challenge to the validity of the Mechanic and Materialmen' s Lien and
Abstract of Judgment filed in Brown County, Texas, as they relate to that 1.816 acre tract
of land in the Taylor Smith Survey No. 600, Abstract No. 821, City of BroV\'llWood, Brown
County, Texas, is GRANTED. The above-numbered and styled cause of action is
dismissed (with/without) prejudice to the rights of either party.
Signed on: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
JUDGE PRESIDING
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Frederick Hoelke
Attorney for
.
Plaintiff
.
~
. .
··.·."·.··~
. ~ :·· .· ... · ·.. ' . . ...=. - ' •. ·.':
.. '· \ .. . ...
...
. . .. .
>.
Robert E. Reich
Attorney for Defendant
Green, John: Order for Non-Suit Page I of l
......... ·.······
·-
To: Page 6 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Finni Reich Law Office
VA '
• Jt11 Court ofAppears /\1andale •
THE STATE OF TEXAS
To THE 35TH DISTRICT COURT OF BROWN COUNTY, GREETINGS:
BEFORE our Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District of Texas, on June 27. 2013 and
JuJy 25, 2013, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between
Memorial Park Medical Center, Inc.
11th Court of Appeals No. 11-11-00159-CV and
35th District Court Case No. CV0904121
John Green
. .
.'was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:
...... .._··
a
"John Green has filed remittitur in compliance with this court's opinion dated
June 2 7, 2013. In accordance with this court's opinion, we modify the trial court's
judgment to reduce the award of damages for vvork performed by $700, making the
amount ofdamages due to Green for Vlork pe1formed equal $9, 020. As modified,
the judgment of the trial court is o.ffirmed. The costs incurred by reason of this
appeal are taxed against Memorial Park Medical Center, Inc. ,,
WHEREFORE WE COMMAND YOU To observe the order of our said Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly
recognized. obeyed and executed.
WITNESS, the HON. JIM R. WRIGHT. Chief Justice of
our said Court. with the seal thereof annexed at the
City of Eastland, on January 3. 2014.
~~"-•· .. ,14 ~
o~ff~
SHERRY W1U~!AMSON 1 CLERK
By: Cheryl Busk, Deputy
EXHIBIT "C''
To: Page 7 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Firrn/ Reich Law Office
M~R-18-2014 10:69 P.OU~UU:&
V\'ll•t~rtl r.u"'
MIMORIAL PA.RI( MRDICAL CENTER, IMC I IN TlfE DlsraJCT COURT
I
vs.
JOHNGRIEN I I
~
I
f l26Tll IUDICW.. CODllT
TRAvlsCOt)l•fO',.UXAS u
Clo
. u
Oa the 4<1; ~ of March, 2.014, clnle to be @mideRMI Pltiiiililrs tQOlil;n: for ~~~
'OF
il\junctiOo and Derendsnt,s ·moti()O$ • dlsmb:s ·for lack of jurisau:liun., · £~~- for saned~~
tram!cr ofvoauo, and mocioa for icconsid.cndion. The: eourt after heating qumersb ofcounteland
contlderjqg d\e-pleeclinp and the mdm\ce WU oftU opiDioll tJULt Plaintift'I motion fot plft\W!et\I
injunction should be patr:d. aad daitd Dcfi:adant'• modom.
1T IS, THF.REFOR.E;OltDERED, AD1000£I>AND DESCJUBED that Plaiatitra motion
for pamanem illj'111ttioA be lflllted. KCOrdingly, aasd. Dcnndlat's motions be denied.
. r"l~
SIGNED this~ day of Marcb, 2014.
.
~
.... ·. . . . -·.
-
RJDGE PRESIDING~ .
TOTAL P.002
To: Page 8 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Firrlll Reich Law Office
NO. D-1-GN-14-000373
MEMORIAL PARK MEDICAL § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
CENTER, INC. §
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
JOHN GREEN §
Defendant. § OFTRAVISCOUNTY,TEXAS
DEFENDANf.$.;MOTION~TffCLARIFV~:ORDERS OR DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES Defendant, John Green, Movant herein, and brings this Motion to Clarify
Orders or Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro Tune. In support hereof, Movant shows the
following:
I.
~n·x~~b.ru-ary:.:·:l•s?f:9:l4:.ei~i.niire~~M?#~il.$f<?t-·:~. n;~~:~w?l,~?~~~.~~w~.ipn,. ~4.,p~f~tt9J~nt's
.¥9tirirFtc>;hi~mis~''le>rXfaat1t6id{il:i~<ii~tii>"ri'aila·1V101ibNt~l'.;sajctio~/f<?r.the;·S._iWiing~and~:f:iling
-of;j~~fi~Jfa\i~f'.tfud.s:orO.Wid.!~~-s.::R~~~Iigs,*ere;:fierirdJ,.y::Jtj9g~.;9r:~t~:4~D:f)Natiu:Jjo~·:A.t·91.~\nistrict
.. J.pdge. The Court announced its deqision to grant Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction
and denied Defendant's motions. Upon Defendant's oral motion .for the Court to take the
~~,~ti#4.i:i~&l2£,9:~rJ9r}t~9,:W~~,1',~,~A·:~~-~Jh~:ma.:tt~rifobhci.rr~~s.:M~sll~~}:2P.:'.~'.1,;::,~~~ho~}?:_¥._:Jllc
l~tter:and_'-~:r~4~r.::p~~p~~.d .and .submitted_ by Trent Hightower, Staff Attorney to Judge Orlinda L.
. ... .-... _; ..... ·:,. .. . ·-· ' .... ~.'
Naranjo, a#hcliea:·Yas:<:Ex~~if~~'l:·';~svl1.i_ch'.-cp~~in¢<l\Al~';{Q.ll:QWiJ1$::.:Pf.9:''f~J8~(:~P~<~~~~::i~:{~~f::~br
h~r,~g,_()n:·a;:~~T.¢r.nw.rary:Jnjtinction::,~.ff~ctive.lJ1}1il'finalli~.~ilJ:g:ipJh:~
:-:"·.::. ' .......::·:· -.. ····· ...... '. ' ' .... · .:::..... . .... . . . .
:::..:·~~:-~~. -·~~ ·.~. . ''. ' ' ' ......... : -·:·· '' ,_ ·.. ::. ', .. ·_ ::·.·· :· ::'::. ... : ·:'
·~· ~ ; ..>.'.·.:-:;· ;-: ..·-::;::.-: ...... ;: :.. :.· .: ..: : ·_,. :.::·_:·..
:·~··:·': :~. :-.:~:
. ~~P-~~·~''.
:::.· ·... . . . . ·..
To: Page 9 of 23 2015-02-0416:59:32 (GMn From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office
Ramsey that the relief sougpt was to extend the ii:ijunction and stated on pag~·~'.~.HJ::~:;:Jtl.:d2.:::~.~~at
M~m1Q~~~xgar.K~t!W:.~~~'.9..P:b~;~=@:i.~sK!9/~~9.Jg.4h~-~~P~i:yf::!t(~f:99~£Uk~:2R-*-.f9,~P~Wf.Hµnt}J.J1tlE:w;·~,,.gm
h"a~#\~¥S#i~1t~fS(!tigated''. r~.¢j~~9tirt~¥~~~~~C.~~fih~~;::JP.tm&:~t~~h¢.)~pjWf.~l~gµ~~J.~,~;~.'.t..1~114~4!!::;:;and
ITJ:~~*-:~th~-~·~q~kgK~li~~f·:~~rifi;x~:~6·i<l~¥;ext~~4.i.hs\m~,mP9:r~~/J.&~~~r~In:mJ~.::;9.r4:~r.~:$..gp!~:~~~~·.~ 3i~-~~wn
on4h~:iitta2lieclLExhlbff~'3".
...::·::·:··-··.:
::.:~:.:." .: ...... .. ... :·:
:·.~. ~ '.' '' :. .'.·;.•, ' .
¥:~?~~1;::~!r%~~~:~Bt~:~~~~~~9:P.~~J\~~.~.;~:~~1.Rm~x;2¥U.l!AA1}R!!~. i'~FJ¥.?.,'.:~1~ff;}:m~g~?:~(~~~~~~l
err6i{Hh/prepaj;J.P.~~;~~~n<6tdei\iliai~~gi@~~~?;.t:J~~nn~.P.;~~!ri.~jµp£~i9.n.:::~!$P.~t·:-~l~ffiU~;~.~g\~~ljiaj}ied
Judge Ramsey's signature on the order on March 15, 2014. The proposed order was not
submitted to opposing counsel in violation of the Local Rules of Travis County. The order
contained an obvious clerical error in that contrary to the Court's ruling the relief purportedly
granted permanently enjoined Defendant from enforcing a Writ of Execution on a valid
Mechanic and Materialman's Lien filed against real property in Brown County, Texas without
first conducting a trial on the merits and somehow invalidating the Mechanic and Materialman' s
Lien as Memorial Park had prayed for in its petition.
The action of the parties clearly established their knowledge and appreciation of the fact
that only a temporary injunction had been granted in that Memorial Park filed an amended
petition on April 14, 2014 Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on July 16, 2014
which are filed of record and are incorporated herein as if set out verbatim.
Contrary to the Local Rules of Travis County shown as Exhibit "4", Mr. Ruth did not
comply with the mandatory requirement and filed three documents in hard copy format and did
not file the documents electronically shown by the District Clerk letter of August 29, 2014
To: Page 10 of 23 2015-02-0416:59:32 (GMD From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that this Court will
GRANT this request and will enter an order authorizing the clerk to enter, on the minutes of this
Court a court order granting a Temporary Injunction or, a Judgment Nunc Pro Tune, and that the
record of the Court be corrected as set forth herein, and for such other and further relief that may
be awarded at law or in equity.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT E. REICH
Attorney at Law
309 N. Fisk
Brownwood, Texas 76801
Tel. (325) 643-1569
Fax.(3~0~
Robert E. Reich
Texas Bar No. 16741300
Attorney for Defendant, John Green
NOTICE OF HEARING
The above and foregoing Defendant's Motion to Clarify Orders or Defendant's Motion
for Judgment Nunc Pro Tune is set for hearing on October 9, 2014 at 2:00 p.m., before Judge
Charles Ramsey.
~.£,
Robert'?Rcicl;. .. . ..
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on September Li,
2014, a true and correct copy of Defendant's Motion for
Judgment Nunc Pro Tune was served by mail on Bill Ruth at 1406 E. Main, Suite 200,
Fredericksburg Texas.
~.v
Robert E. Reich
To: Page 11 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office
TRENT HIGHTOWER
ORLINDA NARANJO StaH AttornC)·
Judge (512) 854-4029
(512) 85-H02~
DORA CANIZALFS
DIANA CAPUCHINO 419TH DISTRICT COURT Official Court Reporter
(512) 854·9329
Court Opcratior.s Officer
(512) 854-402.'\
HEMAN MARJON SWEAITTRAVlS COUNTY COURTHOUSE
P. 0. BOX 1748 ~'1.t\NlE WILi.IAMS
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78767 Filed in The Distric ~1Jrt0erk
FAX: c.s12)8.S4-2224 ofTravis Coun~ X3.$12)B54·5a54
February 24 2014 FEB 2'<Zl014
l ~s--~. I" M.
uez.-M.endoza,· Clerk
Via Facsimile (325) 641-0527
William W. Ruth Robert E. If 1 .
Attorney for Plaintiff Aitome~D"cfendant
Two Creekwood 309~*~isk
Brownwood, Texas, 76801 Brq~ood; Texas, 7680 I
·~ff
-~·
Re: Cause No. D-1-GN-14-000373; M~~ial Park Medical Center, Inc., v. John
Green, [n the 126'h Judicial District C~Travis County, Texas
Dcilr Ccfo~1~1;· • (r:
·~
The Ord~r·_nrep~red by JyfF R.11.tb ~ri:ot confonn to the Court's rulings at .the hearing
conducted m the above-reference()11attet on February 18, 2014. Enclosed lS an Order
Extending Temporary Restrain~~Order
that reflects the ruling of the Court. The Order has
been stamped and filed with tltpistrict Clerk's Office.
lf you have any questions~farding this matter, please contact our Court Operations Officer.
Diana Capuchino, at ~~54-4023. . .
Sincerely,
~~;_ Trent Hightower
Staff Attorney to Judge Orlinda L. Naranjo
4 l 91" District Court, Travis County
Enclosures ( l )
xc: Mi;. Amalia Rodrigutt-Mcndoza. District Ck'Tk
EXHIBIT
I 1
To: Page 12 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office
j
Dlsp Parties: ----_,.,.__
Dfsp code: CVO / CLS .
__
Notice sent Anal Interlocutory None
......,.,~-----
l:'C l:Ki4351 PG256
Redactp
l Judge.
----..""--- Clerk01._ M
__.~
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-14-000373 1j
81 c
~ ~~
·~~
s
l MEMORIALPARKMEDICAL
CENTER, INC.
§
§
§
INTHEDISTRICTCOURT:~,!
:S ~
.. ~d 8
~ ~
~ , :.
~
!
;.
J
1 vs. § 126th JUDICIAL DISTRl<6vi.·~ : i
§ ~l:f :~·s; ~ ~
JOHN GREEN § TRAVIS COUNTY, 'E..0~.g ~~
:.__~ .S'S
:=.,
I ORDER F.JCTEJ'llDlNG TEMPORARY RESTRAlNI~RDER
~-·
·#
a: -<·.l
l On February 18, 2014, Memorial Park Medical Center, #s (hereafter
~§ ~. and after reading the
... ~
"Plaintiff's") Motion for Temporary Injunction came to
motion, bearing the arguments presented by counsel, ~Dsiderlng the same, the Court,
sua sponte, GRANTS an extension of the Tempor"'~eStraining Order issued on February
~
I1
7, 2014, to enable service on Defendant John~n.
·~·
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED thi~rney Robert Reich continue to obey all
t:
provisions of the Tcmporary lteStra,~Order issued on February 7, 2014, until further
Order of the Court. o•
0
The parties and theil~nts are further ordered to appear before this court on
r March 4, 2014, at 2:0~., to show cause why a tempo~ injunction, effective until
I
final judgment in tb~use·should not be granted as prayed for.
I The Bor#the amount of $250 ordered in the initial Temporary Restraining Order
~
remains~~·
.\
~~ioNED on this the ~ l-J. day ofFebruary, 2014.
To: Page 13 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office
1
1 REPORTER'S RECORD
VOLUME 1 OF 1 VOLUME
2
TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-14-000373
3
4 MEMORIAL PARK MEDICAL CENTER, ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT
INC. I )
5 )
)
6 Plaintiff, )
) 126th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
7 vs. )
)
8 )
JOHN GREEN, )
9 )
)
10 Defendant. ) TRAVIS COUNTY I TEXAS
11
12
13 •M-----~----------~-------~---
14 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION, REQUEST FOR
15 SANCTIONS TO TRANSFER OF VENUE, MOTION TO RECONSIDER
17
18
19
20
21 On the 4th day of March, 2014, the following proceedings
22 came on to be heard in the above-entitled and numbered cause
23 before the Honorable Judge Charles Ramsey, Judge presiding,
24 held in Austin, Travis, Texas;
25 Proceedings reported by machine shorthand.
EXHIBIT
I J.
To: Page 14 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office
2
1 A P P E A R A NC E S
2 FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
3 Mr. William Ruth
SBOT: #00788334
4 ATTORNEY AT LAW
1406 East Main Street
s Suite 200
Fredericksburg, Texas 78624
6 Phone: (325) 642-9802
7
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
8
Mr. Robert Reich
9 SBOT: #16741300
HAYNES LAW FIRM P.C.
10 309 North Fisk
Brownwood, Texas 76801
11 Phone: (325) 643-1569
Fax:(325) 643-3105
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
To: Page 15 of 23 2015-02-0416:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law FinT\/ Reich Law Office
3
1 (Proceedings at 3:32 p.m.)
2 MR. RUTH: Your Honor, this is -- we have a
3 request to extend the injunction and according to the prior
4 court, they have already denied the motion for jurisdiction
5 dismiss for jurisdiction and they have already denied motion to
6 transfer venue.
7 THE COURT: You've already had a motion to
8 transfer?
9 MR. REICH: No, Your Honor, I have just now
10 filed it. It has not been ruled on.
11 MR. RUTH: But the Court indicated this when we
12 came over here that she has already ruled on those issues.
13 THE COURT: That's his pleadings in issue, and
14 you have not filed a motion to transfer, this is the first
15 time?
16 MR. REICH: Yes -- no, I filed a plea of
17 jurisdiction.
18 THE COURT: And that was denied?
19 MR. RUTH: Yes, Your Honor, that's what the
20 Court just said before we came over here. Because she had
21 asked the question, she said she denied all the motions. And
22 the only motion we have before you, Your Honor, is the motion
. 23 to extend the injunction hearing.
24 MR. REICH: Your Honor, I would ask the Court to
25 reconsider. That's the appropriate motion to transfer,
To: Page 16 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office
4
1 otherwise it would be a matter of mandamus to -·
2 THE COURT: That's what you are going to have to
3 do.
4 MR. REICH: Well, the Court could reconsider.
5 Please, read my motion, Your Honor --
6 THE COURT: All right.
7 MR. REICH: -- please.
8 THE COURT: And you said the motion to transfer
9 has already been heard?
10 MR. RUTH: Yes -- or she said that she denied
11 all motions before her is what she had indicated. And she said
12 that the only 1ssue before the Court was to extend the
13 injunction. That was -- that was her exact words.
14 MR. REICH: Your Honor, it was late in the day
15 . last week on, I believe, Thursday. And we only -- the Court
16 :had allotted us 15 minutes. We had requested 45 and in
17 fairness to the judge, I don't think she had opportunity to
18 consider the -· the facts before her.
19 (Indicating.)
20 THE COURT: Do you have copy of this?
21 MR. RUTH: No, Your Honor, this is the first I
22 heard, and I wasn't prepared for this, because the Court had
23 already ruled. And she said the only thing that we would be
24 having before her would be the injunction hearing to extend the
25 injunction.
To: Page 17 of 23 2015-02-0416:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Finni Reich Law Office
5
1 MR. REICH: A copy was e-mailed to his office
2 two days ago, Your Honor.
3 MR. RUTH: I have not received a copy of it.
4 Your Honor. That's the first I even knew about it.
5 THE COURT: And who is requesting the extension
6 of the injunction?
7 MR. RUTH: Memorial Park Medical Center.
8 THE COURT: What do you have on that?
9 MR. RUTH: Your Honor, the Court at the last
10 hearing had indicated that she wanted to show cause as to why
11 she should not continue the injunction. And she had requested
12 that we just serve Mr. Green at his last known address, and,
13 Your Honor, we -- we did exactly as the Court said. We -· we
14 employed Assured Civil Process serving here in Austin, which is
15 one of the leading process servers, and they have provided an
16 affidavit. If you would, I would approach the bench?
17 THE COURT: Okay.
18 MR. REICH: We are going to object to it as
19 ·being hearsay, Your Honor. no response from the witness.
20 MR. RUTH: And my understanding is that they
21 filed that directly with the court when they attempted to serve
22 the defendants.
23 THE COURT: Anything further?
24 MR. RUTH: Just. Your Honor, the fact that that
25 we have complied with the court order on getting processed
To: Page 18 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office
6
1 attempted on Mr. Green, and that we did exactly as the Court
2 ordered in order to extend the injunction. And and that
3 they did exactly as the Court had stated and my understanding
4 is that they filed with the court their attempts to have Mr.
5 Green served. And if we need to serve him any further, Your
6 ·Honor, under 120 (a), the counsel is representing Mr. Green
7 and, you know, I think he waived service on the fact that he is
8 here to represent Mr. Green under 120 (a).
9 And so, Your Honor, the tact that we've
10 attempted to serve Mr. Green. Counsel is here to represent Mr.
11 Green. We're ... we're only trying to hold this money in
12 counsel's escrow account until we can have this matter
13 1 i ti gated .
14 I believe the temporary restraining order has
15 been thoroughly looked at. We've had the Court grant our
16 motions to dismiss opposing counsel's motions, and and the
17 only matter before the Court is just to extend the injunction.
18 And that's all we are asking for, Your Honor, is to extend this
19 injunction until Mr. Green can be served or through a posting
20 or -- or have that adequately indicate to the Court that we
21 followed the Court's order in trying to get him served through
22 a proper -- a means of a process server here in this town.
23 THE COURT: All right.
24 MR. REICH: Your Honor, we filed a plea of
25 jurisdiction that this is not the proper court to hear this
To: Page 19 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office
7
1 case. It's a matter of venue, and -- and I am going to ask
2 we are not waiving service. We are not conceding that this
3 court has jurisdiction to hear this matter. It is an in rem
4 proceeding. To clear -- if I have a real property in Brown
5 County, Texas, it is mandatory that it be heard in Brown
6 •· County. We are not pleading - -
7 MR. RUTH: Objection, Your Honor, these matters
8 have already been argued last week, and -- and we have
9 already -- and the ruling has already been made by the Court
10 concerning all these arguments he is making now.
11 THE COURT: He filed a motion to reconsider. I
12 wil 1 1et him
13 MR. RUTH: Okay.
14 THE COURT: -- give his reply.
15 MR. REICH: Your Honor, very clearly his
16 petition states this is the clear title to land in Brown
17 County, Texas. Under Rule -- Civil Practice and Remedies Code
18 · 15.011, i t is mandatory that it be heard in that county. It's
19 an in rem proceeding. That's -- that's -- I don't say it's
20 elementary, but certainly it's a mandatory provision.
21 And an identical suit was filed in Brown County
22 on January 29th, Your Honor. The -- Stephen Ellis, Judge
23 Stephen Ellis, the 35th District Court, denied this identical
24 motion, a request for application for temporary restraining
25 order. The Court denied it --
To: Page 20 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMn From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office
8
1 MR. RUTH: Objection, Your Honor, this is
2 mischaracterization and disingenuous. And, again, Your Honor,
3 I've -- this ~- these entire arguments were made before the
4 Court before and they have been -- they have already been ruled
5 upon, and I just don't appreciate the disingenuity in ~- in the
6 arguments he is making, because these are the same arguments
7 ·that were made before the Court previously and his motion was
8 :_ c1 early denied and it's just ingenious to state that this is
9 the same matter.
10 This is to hold money to -- to in the escrow
11 account. It's not to clear up title, and if there is
12 anything -- any wording to that effect that will be corrected
13 if that's the case, but this case is about -- about holding
14 some funds and that's all it's about.
15 MR. REICH: Your Honor, his petition says it's
16 to clear title and it had -- it's Exhibit A to his petition is
17 the mechanics and materials lien on property in Brown County,
18 Texas. For him to say it's anything other than a clear title.
19 His petition belies that and the Court has to rely on his
20 :_pleadings.
21 And the exhibit's there, Your Honor, you -- his
22 petition is attached to his exhibits, my motion to transfer a
23 venue. I believe, if you will look at his petition which is ...
24 THE COURT: But you agree that it's already been
25 ruled on and you're asking a request that I reconsider -- file
To: Page 21of23 2015-02-0416:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Finni Reich Law Office
9
1 a motion to reconsider? Is that what you are doing?
2 MR. REICH: Yes, Your Honor, and the fact that I
3 do not think the Court understood the -- the true facts that
4 day.
5 THE COURT: You better go tell the Court that.
6 The motion to reconsider is denied, and the injunction is
7 extended.
8 MR. RUTH: Thank you, Your Honor.
9 THE COURT:· Okay. You need to prepare and order
10 and submit it.
11 MR. RUTH: Yes, I will. Thank you, Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: Court is in recess.
13 (End of proceedings at 3:42 p.m.)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
To: Page 22 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMT) From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office
10
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2 THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF TRAVIS
3
4 I, Carissa Crocker, Official Court Reporter in and for the
5 250th District Court of Travis County, State of Texas, do
6 hereby certify that the above and foregoing contains a true and
7 correct transcription of all portions of evidence and other
8 proceedings requested in writing by counsel for the parties to
9 be included in this volume of the Reporter's Record, in the
10 ·above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred in open
11 court or in chambers and were reported by me.
12 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of the
13 proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, if any,
14 -admitted by the respective parties.
15 I further certify that the total cost for the preparation
16 of this Reporter's Record is $60.00 and was paid by Mr. Robert
17 E. Reich.
18 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 8th day of September,
19 2014.
20
21 Isl Carissa Crocker
Carissa Crocker, Texas CSR 8808
22 Expiration Date: 12/31/14
Deputy Court Reporter
23 250th District Court
Travis County, Texas
24 4404 East Oltorf
Unit 5104
25 Austin, Texas 78741
Phone: (214)326-3414
To: Page 23 of 23 2015-02-04 16:59:32 (GMD From: Haynes Law Firm/ Reich Law Office
Judges Notes
Cause #0·1 ·GN-14-000373
MEMORIAL PARK MEDICAL CENTER INC vs. GREEN JOHN
Notes· Note Type. Date LasLEdited Last Edltecr°By
3/4/2014 Atty Ruth for Pltf. Atty Reich for Deft. D.oeket 314/2014 RosenS
Defendant's motion to reconsider denied. Sheet Entry
Order extending TRO granted. Mr. Ruth to
submit order. Record taken by visiting
court reporter Carissa Crocker. CR/sr
9/2/2014 Ruth appeared for Pltf and Reich appeared Docket 912/2014 TRIANAG
for Deft on Oeft's MSJ. Record made. Ct Sheet Entry
did not reach MSJ because the parties
dispute the finality of Judge Ramsey's
order from 3/4/14 hearing. Upon reading
the docket notes and the TRO that sets the
Tl hearing on 3/4/14, this Ct is of the
impression that the order was a Tl and not
a permanent injunction. However, since the
order singed states that a permanent
Injunction Is granted and the docket notes
made state a TRO extended, the Ct
ordered the parties to obtain a transcript
from the 3/4/14 hearing and set the matter
before Judge Ramsey. If Judge Ramsey is
not available, the matter can be set on the
central docket after the parties obtain the
transcript. GOT
9/4/2014 Called both attorneys and left message for Docket 9/4/2Q14 ParsonJ
Mr. Ruth that Judge Ramsey is currently Sheet Entry
schedufed to sit in Travis County during the
week of Oct. 6-10, and that Lorraine would
be the person they need to schedule a
hearing on motion for clarification for his
order from March 2014. Called Mr. Relch•s
office and talked to his assistant to convey
the same Information, explaining that they
need to confirm a time with Judge Ramsey
through Lorraine, but also actually get It set
with the Court Administrator's office. They
were instructed to consult with the Court
Reporter from March 2014 to determine if
she can provide the transcript by whatever
date is set with Ramsey.
EXHIBIT
I 3
Fifed In The District Court
of Travis County, Texas
FEB 18 2015
At // '-tJa M.
Velva L Price, District Clerk
353RD DISTRICT COURT
TIMSULAK
Judge HEMAN MARION SWEATI TRAVIS COUNI'Y COURTHOUSE
(512) 854-9380 P. 0. BOX 1748 RHONDA WATSON
AUSI'IN, TEXAS 78767 OfficiaJ Court Reporter
MEGAN HONEY JOHNSON (512) 854-9356
FAX (512) 854-9'332
Staff Attorney
(512) 854-4281 ELIZABETH GAROA
CourtCerlc
PAMELA SEGER (512) 854-5852
Court Operations Officer
(512) 854-9179 February 18, 2015
VIAE-MAIL
Mr. Fred Hoelke Mr. Robert E. Reich
fredhoelke@aol.com rereich@harrisbb.com
Re: Cause No. D-1-GN-14-000373; Memorial Park Medical Center, Inc. v. John
Green; in the 126th Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas
Dear Counsel:
I am in receipt of Mr. Reich's letter of February 5, 2015 requesting clarification or
amendment of the February 3, 2015 Order of Dismissal.
Upon review, I regret my ability to take further action in this case at this time. It
appears that perhaps further legal research by, or direct communication between, counsel could
resolve any confusion or uncertainty regarding the effects of the various orders and the parties'
future actions.
I trust that your responsibilities to your clients, the court, and each other will allow you
to finally conclude this dispute fairly and in compliance with the requirements of the Rules of
Professional Conduct and the Lawyer's Creed.
orig: Ms. Velva Price, District Oerk
Exhibit 4
NO. 03-15-00141-CV
IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
JOHN GREEN,
Appellant
v.
MEMORIAL PARK MEDICAL CENTER, INC.
Appellee
AFFIDAVIT OF FREDERICK F. HOELKE
STATE OF TEXAS §
§KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS
COUNTY OF BEXAR §
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Frederick F.
Hoelke, who being by me duly sworn, deposed as follows:
1. My name is Frederick F. Hoelke, I am counsel for Memorial Park
Medical Center, Inc. in all capacities in the 1261h District Court of
Travis County Texas in Cause No. D-1-GN-14-000374, styled
Memorial Park Medical Center, Inc. v. John Green.
Affidavit of Frederick F. Hoelke Exhibit 5 I
2. I am of sound mind, capable of making this affidavit, all of which
are true correct, and within my personal knowledge.
3. I am a custodian of records of the Law Offices of Frederick F.
Boelke. Attached to Appellee's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction as Exhibits 1-4 are 24 pages of records from the Law
Office of Frederick F. Boelke reflecting the following documents
filed of record in the trial court cause:
a. Exhibit 1. March 13th 2014 Final Judgment;
b. Exhibit 2. October 30th 2014 Order Denying Motion
for Judgment Nunc Pro Tune.
c. Exhibit 3. February 3, 2015 Letter from Reich counsel
for Appellant Requesting Court Clarifying Order of
Dismissal;
d. Exhibit 4. February 18, 2015, Letter from Trial Court
in Response to counsel for Appellant.
4. These 24 pages of records are kept by the Law Offices of Frederick
F. Hoelke in the regular course of business, and it was the regular
course of business of the Law Offices of Frederick F. Hoelke for
an employee or representative of the Law Offices of Frederick F.
Hoelke with knowledge of the act, event, condition, opinion or
diagnosis recorded to make the record or to transmit information
thereof to be included in such record; and the record was made at
Affidavit of Frederick F. Hoelke 2
or near the time or reasonably soon thereafter. The records
attached hereto are the original or exact duplicates of the originals
FURTHER AFFIANT SA YETH NOT.
~
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME by Frederick F. Hoelke on
this the 241h day of Marc 2015
Notary Public State of Texas
Expires _ _ _ _ _ __
,,_...,,,
i$.•!! ~/;;,,_ LINDA J. KILLIAN
h~f'~ Notary Public. Slate of Texas
'to>J·,~/~j My Commission Expires
"'~t:?:.:f~~,, December 26, 2016
Affidavit of Frederick F. Hoe/ke 3
..)' -- - ~· ---~-~ ,•-.. ...
... ...
- ·.
-
------~- -~,~--··~.. ~-
•. ::._·····--......
··--~.
.::.;--:~---.. _;___... --~.
..
.
I·
)
· . .J.