Preview
000099786
CAUSE NO. GN 504319
Steven J. Ingram,pro se,”suing” § In the Texas State District Ct.
9904D Gray Blvd. § Travis County,Texas
Austin, TX 78753 §
PLAINTIFF §
VS. § 200" State Judicial District
(1) Hertz Claim Mgt., a corp. is sued §
in the corporation’s official capacity § eh
with Ron Morrow in charge § os of:
PO BOX36505(1250 W. Mockingbird L § C x mo
Dallas, TX 75235(Ste.230/Dlas,TX 75247)§ er
DEFENDANT § = 7 |
(IN RE: Hertz Clm. No. 22-2003-19-519L) § UB oe
(2) Mr. Chad Glasgow, is sued in his § Ss Fe
private capacity § S
3732 Bellaire Blvd. N. §
Fort Worth,TX 76109 §
DEFENDANT §
(DEFENDANTS) §
Plaintiff's Motion To Continue(Local Rule 3.5)
(Local Rules of the State Dist. Court, Travis County)
(Local Rule 3.5 Continuance, Pitf’s Motion to Continue)
(See also, Rule 251,T.R.C.P. Continuance)
(in reference to Defendant’s unsolicitated hearing in re:
to Rule 166 T.R.C.P. Hearing on Motion For Sum. Judgmt.)
scheduled for May 16,2006
TO THE Honorable Judge Margaret Cooper:
Now Comes Plaintiff Steven J. Ingram with his Rule 3.5,Motion to Continue:
wt
and MOVES this court as follows:
11,
051006
I Recent Historical Facts
Plaintiff Ingram’s suit was filed on or about Dec. 6.2005. Both defts.
were served timely according to Rule 21 T.R.C.P.
. Originally, Defendant Hertz had no attorney partially because administrator
Ron Morrow did not understand that he could not represent Hertz as he
was only an administrator and not a paralegal or attorney.
Mr. Glasgow had retained the law firm of Springer/Fletcher Austin
div. with Joanna Salinas representing only Mr. Glasgow with
Mr. Morrow issuing an unsolicited check for $500.00 as if he was the
attorney of record for Hertz. Plaintiff Ingram sent the check back
and requested that Hertz declare whether they intended to hire an
attorney and declare whether Hertz was a public corporation. There
was no response from Hertz as a matter of Mr. Morrow or any
attorney of record.
. Defendant Hertz refused to communicate but had been represented previously
Springer/Fletcher in the same cause. Apparently there was some Hertz issue.
Defendant Glasgow filed discovery motions in Feb.,2006
but still def. Hertz had no attomey.
. In Plaintiff's Rule 92, Response Mr. Ingram argued that discovery could
not commence until def. Hertz had an attorney.
In March, Def. Glasgow requested a jury trial orally from the clerk of the
court for June 19,2006 without paying any jury trial fee of $30.00.
Plaintiff Ingram orally requested that the trial date be moved as he requested
90 days of discovery for each side. Def. Glasgow’s counsel Ms. Salinas
refused. Plaintiff Ingram will opt for motion to quash on that trial date.
In March 16,2006, Defendants amended their petition so Springer/Fletcher
could represent both Defendants although Plaintiff Ingram had raised conflict
of interest problems as Springer/Fletcher had been counseling Hertz on cause
at bar in 2004 and 2005 but when def. Glasgow responded originally Hertz
210.
qa)
Q)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
%
051006
had no attorney of record officially but they really had retained Springer/Fletcher
but did not declare it.
On or about April 18,2006 defendants Hertz and Glasgow filed their
motion for summary judgment motion, under 5 pages, was received on or
April 25,2006. This is too close to the 21 day rule the Mtn for S.J.
On or about April 18,2006 defendants sent notice of hearing
without any consultation from Plaintiff Ingram and was received
on April 25,2006 for that motion for summary judgment hearing.
II. Objections to the Hearing date of May 16,2006
Plaintiff Ingram objects to this hearing date because he was not
consulted by phone or letter what date would be appropriate but
also objects to as follows:
Plaintiff must file a Response to Deft’s Motion to Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff must file his own Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff must file his Plaintiff's 1* Amended Petition because he
has additional evidence and after a long investigation finds it
to be very probable that at least one(1) defendant will be added.
Adding a defendant indicates additional service time
Plaintiff Ingram has an additional cause of action currently
at bar and had pleaded that as recently as May 5,2006.
Plaintiff Ingram works full time with overtime presently.
Plaintiff Ingram will require 30 days to file all the motions _
before 7 days before the hearing date to be proposed.
3Therefore, the total number of days for continuance will be 37 days
or on or after June 23,2006.
III. Request for Continuance of 37 days from proposed hearing date
Plaintiff Steven J. Ingram requests the above cause of action be
continued until on or after June,23,2006. Plaintiff opposes any July 3 or 5,
2006 setting because of the holiday.
IV. Rule 238, T.R.C.P. Announcement of Ready
A. On Monday,May 8,2006 at 4:00pm, Plaintiff Ingram spoke with the
clerk of the Court for scheduling and was advised that Defendants
Glasgow/Hertz was not ready.
Plaintiff Ingram considers this uncontested by default.
B. On Tuesday,May 9,2006 at 12:10pm, Mr. Ingram contacted the clerk for
scheduling. Mr. Ingram was advised that Defendants Glasgow/Hertz
was not ready. Defendants have not complied with Rule 238, T.R.C.P.
Plaintiff Ingram considers this to be uncontested by default.
V. Contact with Defendant’s Attorney
Plaintiff Ingram contacted Defendant’s attorney, Joanna L. Salinas.
Defendant’s attorney opposes the motion. However, the failure of
Defendants to announce ready either on Monday or Tuesday
4casts doubt on the hearing date. Plaintiff Ingram requests that
the trial judge not allow any hearing to proceed at the request of Plef. Ingram.
11. Pit’f Ingram contends that no party will be prejudiced by this
continuance.
12. This motion is made at least 6 days before the hearing date
and is being made at the earliest possible time.
VI. Conclusion: Plaintiff is entitled to a continuance as the conduct
of Defendants supports a continuance. In the event, the motion to
continue is not sustained, Plaintiff Ingram will support a continuance on
May 16,2006 and may present a motion to continue should the hearing be
be heard by the court even though it will be at the bottom of pile.
For these reasons stated, Plaintiff Ingram requests that Plaintiff's Motion to
Continue be GRANTED.
VII. Res judicata in support of continuance
Roob v. Beregshasy, 866 S.W.2d 765,766(Tex. App. -Hstn(1* Dist.)
1993,den.) Zo
Respectfully submitted, sy
Koa Zc 5-9-06
even J. Ifgram,pro se “suing”
Plaintiff,9904D Gray Blvd. Austin, TX 78753
COUNSEL IN CHARGE
No bar no.
Phone no. :(512)825-6077
5
Preview
000099786 CAUSE NO. GN 504319 Steven J. Ingram,pro se,”suing” § In the Texas State District Ct. 9904D Gray Blvd. § Travis County,Texas Austin, TX 78753 § PLAINTIFF § VS. § 200" State Judicial District (1) Hertz Claim Mgt., a corp. is sued § in the corporation’s official capacity § eh with Ron Morrow in charge § os of: PO BOX36505(1250 W. Mockingbird L § C x mo Dallas, TX 75235(Ste.230/Dlas,TX 75247)§ er DEFENDANT § = 7 | (IN RE: Hertz Clm. No. 22-2003-19-519L) § UB oe (2) Mr. Chad Glasgow, is sued in his § Ss Fe private capacity § S 3732 Bellaire Blvd. N. § Fort Worth,TX 76109 § DEFENDANT § (DEFENDANTS) § Plaintiff's Motion To Continue(Local Rule 3.5) (Local Rules of the State Dist. Court, Travis County) (Local Rule 3.5 Continuance, Pitf’s Motion to Continue) (See also, Rule 251,T.R.C.P. Continuance) (in reference to Defendant’s unsolicitated hearing in re: to Rule 166 T.R.C.P. Hearing on Motion For Sum. Judgmt.) scheduled for May 16,2006 TO THE Honorable Judge Margaret Cooper: Now Comes Plaintiff Steven J. Ingram with his Rule 3.5,Motion to Continue: wt and MOVES this court as follows: 11, 051006 I Recent Historical Facts Plaintiff Ingram’s suit was filed on or about Dec. 6.2005. Both defts. were served timely according to Rule 21 T.R.C.P. . Originally, Defendant Hertz had no attorney partially because administrator Ron Morrow did not understand that he could not represent Hertz as he was only an administrator and not a paralegal or attorney. Mr. Glasgow had retained the law firm of Springer/Fletcher Austin div. with Joanna Salinas representing only Mr. Glasgow with Mr. Morrow issuing an unsolicited check for $500.00 as if he was the attorney of record for Hertz. Plaintiff Ingram sent the check back and requested that Hertz declare whether they intended to hire an attorney and declare whether Hertz was a public corporation. There was no response from Hertz as a matter of Mr. Morrow or any attorney of record. . Defendant Hertz refused to communicate but had been represented previously Springer/Fletcher in the same cause. Apparently there was some Hertz issue. Defendant Glasgow filed discovery motions in Feb.,2006 but still def. Hertz had no attomey. . In Plaintiff's Rule 92, Response Mr. Ingram argued that discovery could not commence until def. Hertz had an attorney. In March, Def. Glasgow requested a jury trial orally from the clerk of the court for June 19,2006 without paying any jury trial fee of $30.00. Plaintiff Ingram orally requested that the trial date be moved as he requested 90 days of discovery for each side. Def. Glasgow’s counsel Ms. Salinas refused. Plaintiff Ingram will opt for motion to quash on that trial date. In March 16,2006, Defendants amended their petition so Springer/Fletcher could represent both Defendants although Plaintiff Ingram had raised conflict of interest problems as Springer/Fletcher had been counseling Hertz on cause at bar in 2004 and 2005 but when def. Glasgow responded originally Hertz 210. qa) Q) (3) (4) (5) (6) % 051006 had no attorney of record officially but they really had retained Springer/Fletcher but did not declare it. On or about April 18,2006 defendants Hertz and Glasgow filed their motion for summary judgment motion, under 5 pages, was received on or April 25,2006. This is too close to the 21 day rule the Mtn for S.J. On or about April 18,2006 defendants sent notice of hearing without any consultation from Plaintiff Ingram and was received on April 25,2006 for that motion for summary judgment hearing. II. Objections to the Hearing date of May 16,2006 Plaintiff Ingram objects to this hearing date because he was not consulted by phone or letter what date would be appropriate but also objects to as follows: Plaintiff must file a Response to Deft’s Motion to Summary Judgment. Plaintiff must file his own Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff must file his Plaintiff's 1* Amended Petition because he has additional evidence and after a long investigation finds it to be very probable that at least one(1) defendant will be added. Adding a defendant indicates additional service time Plaintiff Ingram has an additional cause of action currently at bar and had pleaded that as recently as May 5,2006. Plaintiff Ingram works full time with overtime presently. Plaintiff Ingram will require 30 days to file all the motions _ before 7 days before the hearing date to be proposed. 3Therefore, the total number of days for continuance will be 37 days or on or after June 23,2006. III. Request for Continuance of 37 days from proposed hearing date Plaintiff Steven J. Ingram requests the above cause of action be continued until on or after June,23,2006. Plaintiff opposes any July 3 or 5, 2006 setting because of the holiday. IV. Rule 238, T.R.C.P. Announcement of Ready A. On Monday,May 8,2006 at 4:00pm, Plaintiff Ingram spoke with the clerk of the Court for scheduling and was advised that Defendants Glasgow/Hertz was not ready. Plaintiff Ingram considers this uncontested by default. B. On Tuesday,May 9,2006 at 12:10pm, Mr. Ingram contacted the clerk for scheduling. Mr. Ingram was advised that Defendants Glasgow/Hertz was not ready. Defendants have not complied with Rule 238, T.R.C.P. Plaintiff Ingram considers this to be uncontested by default. V. Contact with Defendant’s Attorney Plaintiff Ingram contacted Defendant’s attorney, Joanna L. Salinas. Defendant’s attorney opposes the motion. However, the failure of Defendants to announce ready either on Monday or Tuesday 4casts doubt on the hearing date. Plaintiff Ingram requests that the trial judge not allow any hearing to proceed at the request of Plef. Ingram. 11. Pit’f Ingram contends that no party will be prejudiced by this continuance. 12. This motion is made at least 6 days before the hearing date and is being made at the earliest possible time. VI. Conclusion: Plaintiff is entitled to a continuance as the conduct of Defendants supports a continuance. In the event, the motion to continue is not sustained, Plaintiff Ingram will support a continuance on May 16,2006 and may present a motion to continue should the hearing be be heard by the court even though it will be at the bottom of pile. For these reasons stated, Plaintiff Ingram requests that Plaintiff's Motion to Continue be GRANTED. VII. Res judicata in support of continuance Roob v. Beregshasy, 866 S.W.2d 765,766(Tex. App. -Hstn(1* Dist.) 1993,den.) Zo Respectfully submitted, sy Koa Zc 5-9-06 even J. Ifgram,pro se “suing” Plaintiff,9904D Gray Blvd. Austin, TX 78753 COUNSEL IN CHARGE No bar no. Phone no. :(512)825-6077 5