"We hold, however, that Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 40(a)(1) and 41 (a)(1) do not preclude a nonlawyer from performing the specific ministerial task of depositing cash with a clerk in lieu of a cost bond."
How later courts described this case
- "We hold, however, that Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 40(a)(1) and 41 (a)(1) do not preclude a nonlawyer from performing the specific ministerial task of depositing cash with a clerk in lieu of a cost bond."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ACCEPTED
03-15-00637-CV
7997231
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
11/25/2015 3:59:34 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
COURT OF APPEALS NO. 03-15-00637 -CV
TRIAL COURT CASE NO. D-1-GN-12-002873 FILED IN
3rd COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
AIRLINX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. § COURT OF APPEALS
11/25/2015 3:59:34 PM
§ JEFFREY D. KYLE
§ Clerk
Appellant,
§
v. §
§ THIRD DISTRICT OF
§ TEXAS
ULTRA ELECTRONICS ADVANCED §
TACTICALSYSTEMS, INC. §
§
Appellee. § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
APPELLANT'S RESPONSE TO APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
TO THE HONORABLE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS:
A. AIRLINX's president Tjalling Hoiska stated by affidavit on November 12,
2015 at 1}3 that "The Notice of Appeal for this trial court case was
mailed to the district clerk's office on or before August 14, 2015."
The affidavit tracked exactly what the Court of Appeals asked for in its
November 3, 20151etter at 1}2. Under Rule 9.2(b)(2) of the Texas Rules
of Appellate Procedure, the court "may consider other proof" of the date
of mailing. So the Court asked for "other proof' and the Appellant
provided it. The Appellee cannot disprove the Appellant's affidavit. The
1
APPELLANT'S RESPONSE TO APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS
APPEAL
Appellee's accusation is unsubstantiated and uncalled for so the
Appellant respectfully asks the court to disregard it and consider the
Notice of Appeal filed timely.
B. The Appellant's trial attorney will not continue his fee agreement to
completion. That fact coupled with an adverse arbitration award
prejudiced the Appellant's ability to gain other legal representation. The
Appellant has spent much time trying to retain counsel to represent it.
However, insofar as the case's ministerial tasks are concerned including
filing the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant's president and sole
owner/shareholder has the authority to perform such tasks for his
company even though it is an incorporated small business. Kunstoplast
of Am., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA, 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex.
1996) ("We hold, however, that Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure
40(a)(1) and 41 (a)(1) do not preclude a nonlawyer from performing the
specific ministerial task of depositing cash with a clerk in lieu of a cost
bond.")
Tjalling Hoiska, president and sole owner/shareholder respectfully
requests the right to represent his small business pro se because he
owns it 100%. No one else will be hurt by Tjalling Hoiska's
2
APPELLANT'S RESPONSE TO APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS
APPEAL
representation of his own interest. If the court will not grant Tjalling
Hoiska the right to represent his small business, then he respectfully
asks the court for an extension of time to retain counsel to represent the
small business in addition to any other extensions of time. As alternate
relief at least 45 days is requested to retain counsel.
Lastly, the Appellant's first brief is due on December 3, 2015. The
Appellant respectfully requests that this brief's deadline be extended by
45 days from this date or 90 days from this date if the Appellant is
required to retain counsel.
PRAYER
Based on the foregoing, Appellant AIRLINX Communications, Inc.
respectfully requests that the Court deny the Appellee's Motion to
Dismiss Appeal and enter an order dismissing the Appellee's Motion to
Dismiss Appeal and taxing all costs against Appellee.
Respectfully submitted,
~({?.~
Tjalling Ho1ska (thoiska@airlinx.com)
AIRLINX Communications, Inc. (Appellant)
Box 253
Greenville, NH 03048
Tel: (603) 291-0433
Date: Nt>VeJ11ke..-t 2-...'i, 2015
3
APPELLANT'S RESPONSE TO APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS
APPEAL
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
instrument, Appellant's Response to Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal, was
delivered via efile on November 25, 2015 to the following:
Attorneys for the Defendant
Mark L. Hawkins (MHawkins@abaustin.com)
Jeffrey J. Hobbs (JHobbs@abaustin.com)
Andrew F. York (ayork@abaustin.com)
Armbrust & Brown, PLLC
100 Congress Ave., Suite 1300
Austin, Texas 78701 -2744
(512) 435-2371 - Direct Dial
(512) 435-2360- Facsimile
·~Y~
T JALLING HOISKA
Date: No\f® ke.r-25 , 2015
4
APPELLANT'S RESPONSE TO APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS
APPEAL