On July 25, 2017 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
T.H. Trust,
and
Pate, Judy K,
Pate, Robert G,
for Other Civil
in the District Court of Fort Bend County.
Preview
NO. 17-DCV-243655
DAVID H. HAMILTON, AS TRUSTEE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
.
OF T. H. TRUST §
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant.
V.
ROBERT G. PATE AND JUDY K. PATE
Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs, 434TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Vv.
GEORGE M. BISHOP
Cross-Defendant, FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
RESPONSE TO BISHOP’S OBJECTION TO REFERRAL TO ASSOCIATE JUDGE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW Robert G. Pate and Judy K. Pate, Defendants herein, who filed this response
to George Bishop's Objection to Referral to Associate Judge and would show the court as follows:
I
George M.. Bishop, acting then as attorney for David Hamilton, trustee of TH Trust, Plaintiff
herein, filed this suit in 2017.
Between 2017 and January 2021 Bishop, on his own behalf and in representing Hamilton,
appeared on multiple occasions before Honorable John Hawkins, then associate judge of this court.
The associate judge made numerous rulings which were accepted by Bishop and Hamilton.
I.
On March 22, 2021, Bishop and Hamilton both appeared before Judge Argie Brame and
learned of her appointment as associate judge in this case.
il.
On April 14, 2021, Bishop filed his Objection to Referral to Associate Judge, complaining
that he had not been notified of an appointment of an associate judge in this case and requested that
hearing now scheduled for April 19, 2021 be heard by the presiding judge of this court.
Iv.
Texas Government Code section 54a.106 provides that a party must file an objection to an
associate judge hearing a trial on the merits or presiding at a jury trial not later than the 10th day
after the date the party receives notice that the associate judge will hear the summary judgment
motion.
Vv
In this case, on March 22, 2021, at a video hearing at which both Bishop and Hamilton were
present, Judge Brame advised Bishop and Hamilton that she would hear Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment on April 14, 2021. On that date, she continued the hearing for seven days on
the request of Mr. Bishop and Mr. Hamilton.
VI.
In order to be timely, an objection to the associate judge must have been filed by April 1,
2021, ten days after Bishop was informed by Judge Brame that she would hear the Motion for
Summary Judgment on April 14, 2021. The objection filed by Bishop must be denied on the
grounds that it is untimely.
Vil.
Further, the Government code only provides that an objection may be made as to a hearing
on a trial on the merits or presiding over a jury trial. There is no provision for an objection to an
associate judge hearing a motion for sanctions or a motion to exclude evidence as demanded by
Bishop. Bishop’s objections as to those two matters must also be denied on those grounds.
VIL
WHEREFORE, Defendants request that the court deny the objection of Bishop to the referral
of the hearing on motion for summary judgment and on other motions to the associate judge.
Respectfully submitted,
By: _/s/ Russell C. Jones
Russell C. Jones
Texas Bar No. 10954300
Email: rjones@jonesattorneys.com
407 Julie Rivers Drive
Sugar Land, TX 77478
Tel. (281) 242-8100
Fax. (281) 242-7474
Attorney for Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs
Robert G. Pate and Judy K. Pate
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on April |477 2021, a true and correct copy of Response to Referral to
Association Judge was served on George M. Bishop and David H. Hamilton electronically through
the electronic filing manager and-that Hamilton was additionally served by Certified Mail, Return
Receipt Requested at 316 N John Young Pkwy, Ste. 5, Kissimmee, FL 34741.
/s/ Russell C. Jones
Russell C. Jones
Document Filed Date
April 14, 2021
Case Filing Date
July 25, 2017
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
NO. 17-DCV-243655 DAVID H. HAMILTON, AS TRUSTEE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT . OF T. H. TRUST § Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant. V. ROBERT G. PATE AND JUDY K. PATE Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs, 434TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Vv. GEORGE M. BISHOP Cross-Defendant, FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS RESPONSE TO BISHOP’S OBJECTION TO REFERRAL TO ASSOCIATE JUDGE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW Robert G. Pate and Judy K. Pate, Defendants herein, who filed this response to George Bishop's Objection to Referral to Associate Judge and would show the court as follows: I George M.. Bishop, acting then as attorney for David Hamilton, trustee of TH Trust, Plaintiff herein, filed this suit in 2017. Between 2017 and January 2021 Bishop, on his own behalf and in representing Hamilton, appeared on multiple occasions before Honorable John Hawkins, then associate judge of this court. The associate judge made numerous rulings which were accepted by Bishop and Hamilton. I. On March 22, 2021, Bishop and Hamilton both appeared before Judge Argie Brame and learned of her appointment as associate judge in this case. il. On April 14, 2021, Bishop filed his Objection to Referral to Associate Judge, complaining that he had not been notified of an appointment of an associate judge in this case and requested that hearing now scheduled for April 19, 2021 be heard by the presiding judge of this court. Iv. Texas Government Code section 54a.106 provides that a party must file an objection to an associate judge hearing a trial on the merits or presiding at a jury trial not later than the 10th day after the date the party receives notice that the associate judge will hear the summary judgment motion. Vv In this case, on March 22, 2021, at a video hearing at which both Bishop and Hamilton were present, Judge Brame advised Bishop and Hamilton that she would hear Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on April 14, 2021. On that date, she continued the hearing for seven days on the request of Mr. Bishop and Mr. Hamilton. VI. In order to be timely, an objection to the associate judge must have been filed by April 1, 2021, ten days after Bishop was informed by Judge Brame that she would hear the Motion for Summary Judgment on April 14, 2021. The objection filed by Bishop must be denied on the grounds that it is untimely. Vil. Further, the Government code only provides that an objection may be made as to a hearing on a trial on the merits or presiding over a jury trial. There is no provision for an objection to an associate judge hearing a motion for sanctions or a motion to exclude evidence as demanded by Bishop. Bishop’s objections as to those two matters must also be denied on those grounds. VIL WHEREFORE, Defendants request that the court deny the objection of Bishop to the referral of the hearing on motion for summary judgment and on other motions to the associate judge. Respectfully submitted, By: _/s/ Russell C. Jones Russell C. Jones Texas Bar No. 10954300 Email: rjones@jonesattorneys.com 407 Julie Rivers Drive Sugar Land, TX 77478 Tel. (281) 242-8100 Fax. (281) 242-7474 Attorney for Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Robert G. Pate and Judy K. Pate CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on April |477 2021, a true and correct copy of Response to Referral to Association Judge was served on George M. Bishop and David H. Hamilton electronically through the electronic filing manager and-that Hamilton was additionally served by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested at 316 N John Young Pkwy, Ste. 5, Kissimmee, FL 34741. /s/ Russell C. Jones Russell C. Jones