Preview
000 A
000057253
March 6, 2008
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 8
vs. § 200" State Judicial Distrigt
(1) Hertz Claim Mgt., a corp. is sued § Cc =
in the corporation’s official capacity with § uo =
Ron Morrow, Administrator in charge § —~o
PO BOX36505(1250 W. Mockingbird L.)§ LL a
Dallas, TX75235( Ste.230/Dlas, TX 75247)§ =
DEFENDANT § s
(IN RE: Hertz Clm. No. 22-2003-19-519L)§
(2) Mr. Chad Glasgow, is sued in his
private capacity
3732 Bellaire Blvd. N.
Fort Worth, TX 76109
DEFENDANT
(DEFENDANTS)
Plaintiff's Response to Defendant’s Rule 92 Response(Rule 92, T.R.C.P.)
On ur un Or gy
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE COURT:
Now Comes, Plaintiff Ingram with his Rule 92, T.R.C.P. Response and alleges:
I. PARTIES
In reference to Deft. Glasgow’s Rule 92 response as dated Feb. 9 , 2006,
each party is to respond separately. If in fact Hertz Claim Mgt. has not responded,
discovery may not proceed until HCM has opted to default for the purpose of default
1a
March 6, 2008
judgment and further pleading. Deft. Hertz Claim Mgt. has only responded with
a check for $500.00. The Wreck was rejected in Plaintiff s HCM Exhibit R1
on March 3,2006. See Plaintiff's Exhibit R1. (Wo7 ove } a
II. Texas State Bar Rule 1.06
Fletcher/Springer may not at a later time represent Deft. Hertz Claim Mgt.,(HCM.)
without compliance with respect to Texas State Bar Rule 1.06.
Fletcher/Springer must demonstrate that it is following Rule 1.06, Texas Rules
of Bar. Fletcher/Springer must send verification that it has a permanent log
of all E mails, phone calls, and faxes regarding past contact with HCM. Plaintiff
Ingram must be notified of compliance. No further discovery will be accepted
until a clarification of representation of HCM is noticed. Plaintiff Ingram
requests that all Hertz Claim Mgt. communications be logged. Second, a memo
is necessary regarding future representation of all parties separately.
Ill. Discovery
Three discovery rule motions have been sent to Plaintiff Ingram. Defendant’s
Rule 194 T.R.C.P, Rule 196 T.R.C.P, and Rule 197 T.R.C.P. have been moved on
Plaintiff on February 10,2005 when Defendant Hertz Claim Met. has not
abided by the rules. These discovery motions are void because Defendant
Hertz Claim Mgt. has not responded with a Rule 92 T.R.C.P. response. Also
2March 6, 2006
Deft. Glasgow has not complied with Rule 190.2 T.R.C.P. regarding discovery
Level as the damages are less than $50,000.
Plaintiff Ingram requests full compliance regarding discovery Level.
Def. Hertz Claim Mgt’s. status is now in default and must be remedied before any
discovery motions may occur. Discovery must be unified not piecemeal.
The above discovery motions are void. Discovery may only occur after Defendant
Hertz Claim Mgt. has filed its Rule 92 response and notified Plaintiff Ingram
regarding who its attorney of record is. Plaintiff Ingram disputes all discovery
motions as void and requests that discovery occur only after Def. Hertz Claim Mgt.
sends Rule 92 response and decides who their attorney would be, or resolve to
default. These are condition precedents to discovery by Defendant Glasgow.
Also, Plaintiff Ingram will request 90 days minimum for discovery.
IV. Rule 216, T.R.C_P., Jury Trial
The jury trial as set by Defendants for June 19,2006 has been cancelled as of March
6,2006 because of a number of compliance issues. Defendant Hertz Claim
Management has not decided on an attorney and has not responded to Rule 92
T.R.C.P. Plaintiff Ingram alleges that Defendant Glagow may not proceed
with discovery and trial without Defendant Hertz Claim Management responding.————
March 6, 2008
V. Default, Rule 239, T.R.C.P.
Plaintiff Ingram requests that Defendant Glasgow file no more motions until
Defendant Hertz Claim Management has filed responses and second if in default
for long enough; Plaintiff Ingram will file appropriate default motions before
any discovery or trial is set. This is only logical. The percentage of liability
for Def. Hertz Claim Mgt. may have to be remedied by Plaintiff Ingram filing
an amended petition and default judgment then may decided by the court
without jury trial if Defendant Hertz Claim Management continues default.
Plaintiff Ingram recommends that Defendant Hertz Claim Management be given
an additional 10 days and if no response; Plaintiff may file default judgment motions
with or without hearing. Further motions by Defendant Glasgow before Def.
Hertz Claim Mgt’s default status have been remedied are a violation of the
T.R.CP., Rule 239.
VI. Evidence
Plaintiff Ingram alleges that the cell phone evidence of Mr. Chad Glasgow,
Jerry Chucko, and Debra Gail Hagens will be sufficient, along with financial
records of appropriate witnesses. Defendant Glasgow will have to produce those
4‘March 6, 2006
cell phone records before trial during discovery. A subpoena may be necessary.
Plaintiff Ingram did not have enough time to get to the Travis County Court
house on Friday, March 3,2006 to file this response. However, this response may
be timely filed on Monday March 6,2006.
= .
Respectfully submited, Y S Og
Steven J. Ingram, March 6,2006
Pro se. “Suing”
No bar no.
No fax no.
Phone: (512)825-6077
Plaintiff
Counsel in Charge
Steven J. Ingram,pro se.
9904D Gray Blvd.
Austin, TX 78753March 6, 2006
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Thereby certify that a true copy of the instruments:
Plaintiff's Rule 92 T.R.C.P. Response
has been delivered by Plaintiff Ingram or a server; or mailed by an agent or the
U.S.P.S., FEDEX, or UPS with receipted delivery or sent by certified mail by
being deposited in a postpaid, properly address wrapper in a post office
or other authorized official depository under the care and custody of
the U.S.P.S. ; y
Gi -<.. Jove ae
Printed name of delivery agent. Signature/Daté “
YE/CE
Steven TF Tuga 03-06 -06
If server has a separate form for service, it has been authorized
by Plaintiff Steven J. Ingram, pro se.
Plaintiff Ingram requests that this page be at least initialed,dated,
with server’s name clearly printed.
Defendants Service Addresses Plaintiff's Service Address
1.
Hertz Claims Mgt./Atty. in charge,NA; Mr. Steven J. Ingram,pro se
1250 W. Mockingbird L. Ste. 230 9904D Gray Blvd.
Dallas, TX 75247 Austin, TX 78753
2. Atty.in Charge: Joanna Lippman Salinas; Representing:
Fletcher-Springer / Chad Edward Glasgow
897 Congress Ave. / 3732 Bellaire Blvd. N.
Ste. 1300 / Fort Worth, TX 76109
Austin, TX 78701
lofl‘March 6, 2006
Amelia Rodriquez-Mendoza Steven J. Ingram, Plaintiff,
Travis County District Clerk pro se, “suing”
PO BOX 1748 9904D Gray Blvd.
Austin, TX 78767-1748 Austin, TX 78753
RE: Cause No: GN504319; In the 200" Judicial Dist. Ct. ,Travis County,Texas
Steven J. Ingram v. Hertz Claim Mgt. and Chad Glasgow; setting for jury trial
on June 19,2006.
March 6,2006
Dear Clerk:
On March 2,2006, I received notice of a setting on June 19,2006 at 9:00AM.
that was dated Feb. 27,2006.
Plaintiff Ingram today, March 6,2006, is canceling the above setting.
Plaintiff Ingram will not agree a jury trial date before September 1,2006
because he will be requiring 90 days for discovery with both defendants
needing the same unless they waive their rights.
The Defendants are not_in full compliance with rules regarding:
1. Rule 92, T.R.C.P. response regarding party, Hertz Claim Mgt. has not
responded and has no attorney at this time.
2. Discovery by Defendant Glasgow is not in compliance with
Rule 190.2 T.R.C-P., as total damages are under $50,000.
3. Other representation issues regarding defendants preclude selecting a trial date.
Consequently a jury trial is in violation of the above rules and Plaintiff
Ingram will not agree to any setting of a jury trial until 30 days is given
for Hertz Claim Mgt. to respond, Discovery reserved, and 120 days
for discovery for both sides. This would delay the jury trail until at least
September 1,2006 and perhaps thereafter.
1‘March 6, 2006
This letter to the clerk is considered to be a part of the Rule 92, T.R.C.P. response.
ee
" incerely, 7s Ce
ade March 6,2006
teven J. Ingram
Pro se “suing”
Plaintiff
No bar no.
No fax no.
Phone:(512)825-6077
Plaintiff's Exhibit J1.
COUNSEL IN CHARGE
Plaintiff's Address:
Steven J. Ingram,pro se “suing”
9904D Gray Blvd.
Austin, TX 78753
Preview
000 A 000057253 March 6, 2008 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 8 vs. § 200" State Judicial Distrigt (1) Hertz Claim Mgt., a corp. is sued § Cc = in the corporation’s official capacity with § uo = Ron Morrow, Administrator in charge § —~o PO BOX36505(1250 W. Mockingbird L.)§ LL a Dallas, TX75235( Ste.230/Dlas, TX 75247)§ = DEFENDANT § s (IN RE: Hertz Clm. No. 22-2003-19-519L)§ (2) Mr. Chad Glasgow, is sued in his private capacity 3732 Bellaire Blvd. N. Fort Worth, TX 76109 DEFENDANT (DEFENDANTS) Plaintiff's Response to Defendant’s Rule 92 Response(Rule 92, T.R.C.P.) On ur un Or gy TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE COURT: Now Comes, Plaintiff Ingram with his Rule 92, T.R.C.P. Response and alleges: I. PARTIES In reference to Deft. Glasgow’s Rule 92 response as dated Feb. 9 , 2006, each party is to respond separately. If in fact Hertz Claim Mgt. has not responded, discovery may not proceed until HCM has opted to default for the purpose of default 1a March 6, 2008 judgment and further pleading. Deft. Hertz Claim Mgt. has only responded with a check for $500.00. The Wreck was rejected in Plaintiff s HCM Exhibit R1 on March 3,2006. See Plaintiff's Exhibit R1. (Wo7 ove } a II. Texas State Bar Rule 1.06 Fletcher/Springer may not at a later time represent Deft. Hertz Claim Mgt.,(HCM.) without compliance with respect to Texas State Bar Rule 1.06. Fletcher/Springer must demonstrate that it is following Rule 1.06, Texas Rules of Bar. Fletcher/Springer must send verification that it has a permanent log of all E mails, phone calls, and faxes regarding past contact with HCM. Plaintiff Ingram must be notified of compliance. No further discovery will be accepted until a clarification of representation of HCM is noticed. Plaintiff Ingram requests that all Hertz Claim Mgt. communications be logged. Second, a memo is necessary regarding future representation of all parties separately. Ill. Discovery Three discovery rule motions have been sent to Plaintiff Ingram. Defendant’s Rule 194 T.R.C.P, Rule 196 T.R.C.P, and Rule 197 T.R.C.P. have been moved on Plaintiff on February 10,2005 when Defendant Hertz Claim Met. has not abided by the rules. These discovery motions are void because Defendant Hertz Claim Mgt. has not responded with a Rule 92 T.R.C.P. response. Also 2March 6, 2006 Deft. Glasgow has not complied with Rule 190.2 T.R.C.P. regarding discovery Level as the damages are less than $50,000. Plaintiff Ingram requests full compliance regarding discovery Level. Def. Hertz Claim Mgt’s. status is now in default and must be remedied before any discovery motions may occur. Discovery must be unified not piecemeal. The above discovery motions are void. Discovery may only occur after Defendant Hertz Claim Mgt. has filed its Rule 92 response and notified Plaintiff Ingram regarding who its attorney of record is. Plaintiff Ingram disputes all discovery motions as void and requests that discovery occur only after Def. Hertz Claim Mgt. sends Rule 92 response and decides who their attorney would be, or resolve to default. These are condition precedents to discovery by Defendant Glasgow. Also, Plaintiff Ingram will request 90 days minimum for discovery. IV. Rule 216, T.R.C_P., Jury Trial The jury trial as set by Defendants for June 19,2006 has been cancelled as of March 6,2006 because of a number of compliance issues. Defendant Hertz Claim Management has not decided on an attorney and has not responded to Rule 92 T.R.C.P. Plaintiff Ingram alleges that Defendant Glagow may not proceed with discovery and trial without Defendant Hertz Claim Management responding.———— March 6, 2008 V. Default, Rule 239, T.R.C.P. Plaintiff Ingram requests that Defendant Glasgow file no more motions until Defendant Hertz Claim Management has filed responses and second if in default for long enough; Plaintiff Ingram will file appropriate default motions before any discovery or trial is set. This is only logical. The percentage of liability for Def. Hertz Claim Mgt. may have to be remedied by Plaintiff Ingram filing an amended petition and default judgment then may decided by the court without jury trial if Defendant Hertz Claim Management continues default. Plaintiff Ingram recommends that Defendant Hertz Claim Management be given an additional 10 days and if no response; Plaintiff may file default judgment motions with or without hearing. Further motions by Defendant Glasgow before Def. Hertz Claim Mgt’s default status have been remedied are a violation of the T.R.CP., Rule 239. VI. Evidence Plaintiff Ingram alleges that the cell phone evidence of Mr. Chad Glasgow, Jerry Chucko, and Debra Gail Hagens will be sufficient, along with financial records of appropriate witnesses. Defendant Glasgow will have to produce those 4‘March 6, 2006 cell phone records before trial during discovery. A subpoena may be necessary. Plaintiff Ingram did not have enough time to get to the Travis County Court house on Friday, March 3,2006 to file this response. However, this response may be timely filed on Monday March 6,2006. = . Respectfully submited, Y S Og Steven J. Ingram, March 6,2006 Pro se. “Suing” No bar no. No fax no. Phone: (512)825-6077 Plaintiff Counsel in Charge Steven J. Ingram,pro se. 9904D Gray Blvd. Austin, TX 78753March 6, 2006 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that a true copy of the instruments: Plaintiff's Rule 92 T.R.C.P. Response has been delivered by Plaintiff Ingram or a server; or mailed by an agent or the U.S.P.S., FEDEX, or UPS with receipted delivery or sent by certified mail by being deposited in a postpaid, properly address wrapper in a post office or other authorized official depository under the care and custody of the U.S.P.S. ; y Gi -<.. Jove ae Printed name of delivery agent. Signature/Daté “ YE/CE Steven TF Tuga 03-06 -06 If server has a separate form for service, it has been authorized by Plaintiff Steven J. Ingram, pro se. Plaintiff Ingram requests that this page be at least initialed,dated, with server’s name clearly printed. Defendants Service Addresses Plaintiff's Service Address 1. Hertz Claims Mgt./Atty. in charge,NA; Mr. Steven J. Ingram,pro se 1250 W. Mockingbird L. Ste. 230 9904D Gray Blvd. Dallas, TX 75247 Austin, TX 78753 2. Atty.in Charge: Joanna Lippman Salinas; Representing: Fletcher-Springer / Chad Edward Glasgow 897 Congress Ave. / 3732 Bellaire Blvd. N. Ste. 1300 / Fort Worth, TX 76109 Austin, TX 78701 lofl‘March 6, 2006 Amelia Rodriquez-Mendoza Steven J. Ingram, Plaintiff, Travis County District Clerk pro se, “suing” PO BOX 1748 9904D Gray Blvd. Austin, TX 78767-1748 Austin, TX 78753 RE: Cause No: GN504319; In the 200" Judicial Dist. Ct. ,Travis County,Texas Steven J. Ingram v. Hertz Claim Mgt. and Chad Glasgow; setting for jury trial on June 19,2006. March 6,2006 Dear Clerk: On March 2,2006, I received notice of a setting on June 19,2006 at 9:00AM. that was dated Feb. 27,2006. Plaintiff Ingram today, March 6,2006, is canceling the above setting. Plaintiff Ingram will not agree a jury trial date before September 1,2006 because he will be requiring 90 days for discovery with both defendants needing the same unless they waive their rights. The Defendants are not_in full compliance with rules regarding: 1. Rule 92, T.R.C.P. response regarding party, Hertz Claim Mgt. has not responded and has no attorney at this time. 2. Discovery by Defendant Glasgow is not in compliance with Rule 190.2 T.R.C-P., as total damages are under $50,000. 3. Other representation issues regarding defendants preclude selecting a trial date. Consequently a jury trial is in violation of the above rules and Plaintiff Ingram will not agree to any setting of a jury trial until 30 days is given for Hertz Claim Mgt. to respond, Discovery reserved, and 120 days for discovery for both sides. This would delay the jury trail until at least September 1,2006 and perhaps thereafter. 1‘March 6, 2006 This letter to the clerk is considered to be a part of the Rule 92, T.R.C.P. response. ee " incerely, 7s Ce ade March 6,2006 teven J. Ingram Pro se “suing” Plaintiff No bar no. No fax no. Phone:(512)825-6077 Plaintiff's Exhibit J1. COUNSEL IN CHARGE Plaintiff's Address: Steven J. Ingram,pro se “suing” 9904D Gray Blvd. Austin, TX 78753