# Airlinx Communications, Inc. v. Ultra Electronics Advanced Tactical Systems, Inc. > Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · November 25, 2015 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4075601 ## Case - **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) - **Decided:** November 25, 2015 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4075601 ## Opinion text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4075601. Public record. Not legal advice.