On September 14, 2016 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Lin, S Emanuel,
and
Does 1-10,
Estate Of Kenneth James Wilchenski,
for Motor Vehicle Accident
in the District Court of Harris County.
Preview
No. 2016-62142
S. EMANUEL LIN
Plaintiff IN THE 269TH
DISTRICT COURT OF TEXAS
ESTATE OF KENNETH COUNTY OF HARRIS
JAMES WILCHENSKI, Hon. Dan Hinde
ROBERT FLOYD SUE
TRUCKING, INC., Submission March 19, 2018
DOES 1 ~10 Time: 8:00 a.m.
Defendants
SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPO-
SITION MOTION TO EXCLUDE INSUR-
ANCE PREMIUMS & LOSS OF USE
To the Honorable Court:
filing about five hours ago his Opposition Defendant
Motion to Exclude Evidence of Insurance Premiums and “Loss of Use’
Damages under Rules of Evidence 104 and 402, Plaintiff had pre-
pared and filed a proposed order containing an open ruling on
“Plaintiff’s objection to [Defendants Exhibit 8 $57,000 Wells
Fargo Deposit Receipt
However, the said objection was inadvertently missed in
the said Opposition. Plaintiff hereby seeks Court s permission to
make the supplement on the objection.
Supplement to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude
1 Plaintiff would also take this opportunity to request Court’s
2 action on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Pre-Marked
3 Deposition Exhibits for Inspection “Filed: 1/12/2018 12:00 AM” on
4 court’s submission docket of January 22, 2018, but still await for
5 a ruling.
6 III. Objection to Defendants’ Exhibit 8 –
7 $57,000 Wells Fargo Deposit Receipt
8
9 Plaintiff objects to the use of Defendants’ Exhibit 8, a
10 $57,000 Wells Fargo Deposit Receipt, on the ground Plaintiff had
11 made a Texas Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 193.3(d) demand for
12 the return of the said deposit receipt through Plaintiff’s Second-
13 Amended Response to Defendants’ First Requests for Production
14 that was served on December 14, 2017. (See Exhibit 65 attached
15 to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Amended Motion to Exclude
16 Plaintiff’s Discovery Document “Filed: 1/18/2018 5:13 PM”)
17 Furthermore, such use without Plaintiff’s permission vio-
18 lates Plaintiff’s right to financial privacy.
2 Supplement to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude
1 IV. Minor Clarification
2
3 Page 7, lines 5-8 in Plaintiff’s original Opposition is clarified
4 to read as follows:
5 “Loss of use of my Vovlo from 11/25/2014
6 through 5/19/2015 [when Defendants’ $745.63 check
7 at Exhibit 133 was issued for the Volvo damaged] at
8 $6,828.85 (= $1,560.88/ 48days x30days a month x 6
9 months =$975.55 a month x 6 months)”.
10 Lastly, in filing his original Opposition, Plaintiff encoun-
11 tered a technical difficulties that caused Plaintiff to cut short his
12 Exhibits and filed the remaining Exhibits 132-135 in a separate
13 envelop.
14
15 Dated: Thursday March 15, 2018 S. Emanuel Lin
16 3527 Woodvalley Dr.
17 Houston, TX 77025-4232
18 (713) 858-2462
19 LinEmanuel@gmail.com
20 Proof of Electronic Service
21
22 I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of
23 the State of Texas that on Thursday March 15, 2018 around 5:50
24 a.m., I served an electronic copy of Supplement to Plaintiff’s Mo-
25 tion for Default Judgment upon the following via eFileTexas, the
26 Court’s electronic filing manager, pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil
3 Supplement to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude
1 Procedure Rule 21(f)(3):
2 Mr. David Helmey, attorney for Defendants Estate
3 of Kenneth James Wilchenski and Robert Floyd Sue
4 Trucking, Inc. at david@fuentesfirm.com.
5
6 Dated: Thursday March 15, 2018 S. Emanuel Lin
4 Supplement to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude
Document Filed Date
March 15, 2018
Case Filing Date
September 14, 2016
Category
Motor Vehicle Accident
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
No. 2016-62142 S. EMANUEL LIN Plaintiff IN THE 269TH DISTRICT COURT OF TEXAS ESTATE OF KENNETH COUNTY OF HARRIS JAMES WILCHENSKI, Hon. Dan Hinde ROBERT FLOYD SUE TRUCKING, INC., Submission March 19, 2018 DOES 1 ~10 Time: 8:00 a.m. Defendants SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPO- SITION MOTION TO EXCLUDE INSUR- ANCE PREMIUMS & LOSS OF USE To the Honorable Court: filing about five hours ago his Opposition Defendant Motion to Exclude Evidence of Insurance Premiums and “Loss of Use’ Damages under Rules of Evidence 104 and 402, Plaintiff had pre- pared and filed a proposed order containing an open ruling on “Plaintiff’s objection to [Defendants Exhibit 8 $57,000 Wells Fargo Deposit Receipt However, the said objection was inadvertently missed in the said Opposition. Plaintiff hereby seeks Court s permission to make the supplement on the objection. Supplement to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude 1 Plaintiff would also take this opportunity to request Court’s 2 action on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Pre-Marked 3 Deposition Exhibits for Inspection “Filed: 1/12/2018 12:00 AM” on 4 court’s submission docket of January 22, 2018, but still await for 5 a ruling. 6 III. Objection to Defendants’ Exhibit 8 – 7 $57,000 Wells Fargo Deposit Receipt 8 9 Plaintiff objects to the use of Defendants’ Exhibit 8, a 10 $57,000 Wells Fargo Deposit Receipt, on the ground Plaintiff had 11 made a Texas Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 193.3(d) demand for 12 the return of the said deposit receipt through Plaintiff’s Second- 13 Amended Response to Defendants’ First Requests for Production 14 that was served on December 14, 2017. (See Exhibit 65 attached 15 to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Amended Motion to Exclude 16 Plaintiff’s Discovery Document “Filed: 1/18/2018 5:13 PM”) 17 Furthermore, such use without Plaintiff’s permission vio- 18 lates Plaintiff’s right to financial privacy. 2 Supplement to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude 1 IV. Minor Clarification 2 3 Page 7, lines 5-8 in Plaintiff’s original Opposition is clarified 4 to read as follows: 5 “Loss of use of my Vovlo from 11/25/2014 6 through 5/19/2015 [when Defendants’ $745.63 check 7 at Exhibit 133 was issued for the Volvo damaged] at 8 $6,828.85 (= $1,560.88/ 48days x30days a month x 6 9 months =$975.55 a month x 6 months)”. 10 Lastly, in filing his original Opposition, Plaintiff encoun- 11 tered a technical difficulties that caused Plaintiff to cut short his 12 Exhibits and filed the remaining Exhibits 132-135 in a separate 13 envelop. 14 15 Dated: Thursday March 15, 2018 S. Emanuel Lin 16 3527 Woodvalley Dr. 17 Houston, TX 77025-4232 18 (713) 858-2462 19 LinEmanuel@gmail.com 20 Proof of Electronic Service 21 22 I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of 23 the State of Texas that on Thursday March 15, 2018 around 5:50 24 a.m., I served an electronic copy of Supplement to Plaintiff’s Mo- 25 tion for Default Judgment upon the following via eFileTexas, the 26 Court’s electronic filing manager, pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil 3 Supplement to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude 1 Procedure Rule 21(f)(3): 2 Mr. David Helmey, attorney for Defendants Estate 3 of Kenneth James Wilchenski and Robert Floyd Sue 4 Trucking, Inc. at david@fuentesfirm.com. 5 6 Dated: Thursday March 15, 2018 S. Emanuel Lin 4 Supplement to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude