On October 29, 2009 a
OBJECTIONS
was filed
involving a dispute between
Stirling Renaissance Park Properties Lp,
and
210 Renaissance Park Lp,
210 Rp Llc,
Barnal , Robert C,
Chang , John,
Chang , Qing,
Hsi , Jung,
Jqj Llc,
for BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (GEN LIT )
in the District Court of Travis County.
Preview
Filed
11 June 15 P1:42
Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza
District Clerk
Travis District
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-09-003734 D-1-GN-08-003734
STIRLING RENAISSANCE PARK § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
PROPERTIES, LP, §
Plaintiff, §
8 :
v. § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
JUNG HSI, Individually, §
210 RENAISSANCE PARK, LP, and §
210 RP, LLC, §
Defendants. § 419" JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO THE POST-VERDICT AFFIDAVIT OF SEANN POLI
Defendants hereby object to the Stirling Plaintiffs Post-Verdict Affidavit of Seann Poli (the
“Poli Affidavit”), and shows the Court as follows:
1. The Poli Affidavit is inadmissible because it is filed in violation of Texas Rule of
Civil Procedure 270, and the Court is without authority to receive it. See Tex. R. of Civ. P. 270;
University of Texas v. Ables, 914 S.W.2d 712, 718 (Tex. App.-Austin, 1996) (trial court abused its
discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees based upon an affidavit attached to plaintiffs post-trial
motion); Nixon v. GMAC Mort. Corp., 2009 WL 2973660, at *3 (Tex. App.-Dallas, Sept. 18, 2009)
(affirming trial court’s decision to refuse to reopen evidence after jury verdict); Reveil v. A.L. Leal,
Inc., 687 S.W.2d 467 (Tex App.-Dallas, 1985) (noting that Rule 270 forbids introduction of evidence
on a controversial matter after the verdict is received, and refusing to accept evidence presented for
the first time on a motion for new trial).
2. Independently of this bar to admissibility, the first and third sentences of paragraph
4 the Poli Affidavit are inadmissible because they constitute conclusory statements of fact or
impermissible conclusions of law.PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Court strike the Poli Affidavit and
sustain their objections thereto and grant them such other and further relief to which they may be
justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
FRITZ, BYRNE, HEAD & HARRISON, PLLC
98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 2000
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: (512) 476-2020
Telecopy: (512) 477-5267
By: Ath. CovyER
Daniel H. Byrne
Texas State Bar No. 03565600
Kevin W. Brown
State Bar No. 24045222
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS JUNG HSI,
INDIVIDUALLY, 210 RENAISSANCE PARK,
LP, AND 210 RP, LLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Thereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served via facsimile
as indicated below, upon the following on this the 4S¥G day of June, 2011:
Walter V. Williams
Jack Modesett, III
Modesett Williams, PLLC
Capitol Center. 919 Congress Avenue, Suite 1425
Austin, Texas 78701
Fax: (512) 481-0130
iu Cy
Daniel H. Byrne/Kevin W. Brown
Page 2
Document Filed Date
June 15, 2011
Case Filing Date
October 29, 2009
Category
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (GEN LIT )
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Filed 11 June 15 P1:42 Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza District Clerk Travis District CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-09-003734 D-1-GN-08-003734 STIRLING RENAISSANCE PARK § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PROPERTIES, LP, § Plaintiff, § 8 : v. § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS § JUNG HSI, Individually, § 210 RENAISSANCE PARK, LP, and § 210 RP, LLC, § Defendants. § 419" JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO THE POST-VERDICT AFFIDAVIT OF SEANN POLI Defendants hereby object to the Stirling Plaintiffs Post-Verdict Affidavit of Seann Poli (the “Poli Affidavit”), and shows the Court as follows: 1. The Poli Affidavit is inadmissible because it is filed in violation of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 270, and the Court is without authority to receive it. See Tex. R. of Civ. P. 270; University of Texas v. Ables, 914 S.W.2d 712, 718 (Tex. App.-Austin, 1996) (trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees based upon an affidavit attached to plaintiffs post-trial motion); Nixon v. GMAC Mort. Corp., 2009 WL 2973660, at *3 (Tex. App.-Dallas, Sept. 18, 2009) (affirming trial court’s decision to refuse to reopen evidence after jury verdict); Reveil v. A.L. Leal, Inc., 687 S.W.2d 467 (Tex App.-Dallas, 1985) (noting that Rule 270 forbids introduction of evidence on a controversial matter after the verdict is received, and refusing to accept evidence presented for the first time on a motion for new trial). 2. Independently of this bar to admissibility, the first and third sentences of paragraph 4 the Poli Affidavit are inadmissible because they constitute conclusory statements of fact or impermissible conclusions of law.PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Court strike the Poli Affidavit and sustain their objections thereto and grant them such other and further relief to which they may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, FRITZ, BYRNE, HEAD & HARRISON, PLLC 98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 2000 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 476-2020 Telecopy: (512) 477-5267 By: Ath. CovyER Daniel H. Byrne Texas State Bar No. 03565600 Kevin W. Brown State Bar No. 24045222 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS JUNG HSI, INDIVIDUALLY, 210 RENAISSANCE PARK, LP, AND 210 RP, LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served via facsimile as indicated below, upon the following on this the 4S¥G day of June, 2011: Walter V. Williams Jack Modesett, III Modesett Williams, PLLC Capitol Center. 919 Congress Avenue, Suite 1425 Austin, Texas 78701 Fax: (512) 481-0130 iu Cy Daniel H. Byrne/Kevin W. Brown Page 2