Preview
RECEIVED AND FILED
R RECORD,
At O'Clock. M
CAUSE NO. 20-08-10244 APR 18 2022
Melisa Milier, District Clerk
inty, Texas
B
CHARLES ALTON ABERNATHY IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
Vs. 457th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
BRADLEY S. ABERNATHY
Defendant. MONTOGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REOPEN THE EVIDENCE
Defendant, Bradley Ss. Abernathy, asks the Court to allow him
to reopen the evidence to present additional evidence in this
case.
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff, Charles Alton Abernathy, sued defendant, Bradley
S. Abernathy for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud and
Conversion stating that somehow, defendant was responsible for
plaintiff's out of state incarceration and, that plaintiff
allegedly lost an entire company he claims was valued at over
$100,000.00, due to defendants alleged missappropriation of
$2,000.00.
2. Defendant answered, asserting a general denial demanding
strict proof thereof.
3. Plaintiff moved for Summary Judgement which was summarily
denied by this Court.
4. This case is set for jury trial beginning May 16, 2022.
BACKGROUND
5. Although parties have rested, it is necessary for defendant to
present additional relevant evidence of discovery.
6. The evidence that defendant seeks to offer is relevant
discovery sought by plaintiff, answered by defendant, in which |
was allegedly not received by plaintiff.
ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES
7. A trial court should reopen the evidence when the introduction
of additional evidence clearly appears to be necessary to the
administration of justice. Tex. R. Civ. P. 270. The decision
to reopen the case to permit additional evidence is within the
trial court's sound discretion. Poa Vs. Flories, 317 S.W. 3a
820, 828 (Tex. App-Fort Worth 2010, no pet.); Lopez Vs. Lopez,
55 S.W. 3d 194, 201 (Tex. App-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.);
In re Hawk, 5 S.W. 3d
874, 876-77 (Tex. App-Houston [14t
Dist.] 1999, no pet.). The trial court should liberally
excersize that discretion to permit the full developement of
the case. Lopez, 55 S.W. 3d at 201; In_re Hawk, 5 S.W. 3d at
877.
8. In deciding whether to allow additional evidence, a court
should consider (1) whether the movant has been diligent in
obtaining the evidence, (2) ‘whether the receipt of additional
evidence will cause undue delay or injustice, and (3) whether
the evidence will be decisive. Moore Vs. Jet Stream Invs.,
Ltd., 315 S.W. 3a 195, 201 (Tex. App-Texarkana 2010,
pet. denied); Hernadez_ Vs.- Lautensack, 201 S.W. 3d 771, 779
(Tex. App-Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied); Lopez, 55 S.W. 3a
201.
9. The Court should reopen the evidence in this case for the
following reasons:
(a) Defendant was diligent in obtaining evidence requested by
Plaintiff.
(b) The receipt of evidence will not cause undue delay.
(c) The receipt of evidence will not cause injustice.
(4a) The evidence is decisive.
CONCLUSTON
10. Plaintiff has brought a frivilous
forward claim against
defendant in an attempt
to hold defendant responsible for
plaintiff's own action(s). There is no basis in law or fact
to support plaintiff's outrageous claim. No rational juror or
[non]rationable juror would entertain plaintiff's baseless
allegations against defendant. Plaintiff committed the crime
that caused his out of state incarceration for two (2) weeks.
Defendant, as a brother, made all necessary arrangements to
bail plaintiff out when plaintiff was eligible. Defendant
reimbursed himself the $2,000.00 amount owed to him by
plaintiff which plaintiff now claims caused the ultimate loss
of his company he valued at over $100,000.00. It's beyond
impossible to believe plaintiff could loose an entire company
valued at over $100,000.00 because of $2,000.00, and hold
defendant responsible.
PRAYER
11. For these reasons, defendant asks the Court to reopen the
evidence.
Respectfully submitted,
Re SS.
Bradley S. Abernathy
Allan B. Polunsky Unit
3872 FM 350 South
Livingston, Texas 77351
Defendant, pro se
Preview
RECEIVED AND FILED R RECORD, At O'Clock. M CAUSE NO. 20-08-10244 APR 18 2022 Melisa Milier, District Clerk inty, Texas B CHARLES ALTON ABERNATHY IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, Vs. 457th JUDICIAL DISTRICT BRADLEY S. ABERNATHY Defendant. MONTOGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REOPEN THE EVIDENCE Defendant, Bradley Ss. Abernathy, asks the Court to allow him to reopen the evidence to present additional evidence in this case. INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff, Charles Alton Abernathy, sued defendant, Bradley S. Abernathy for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud and Conversion stating that somehow, defendant was responsible for plaintiff's out of state incarceration and, that plaintiff allegedly lost an entire company he claims was valued at over $100,000.00, due to defendants alleged missappropriation of $2,000.00. 2. Defendant answered, asserting a general denial demanding strict proof thereof. 3. Plaintiff moved for Summary Judgement which was summarily denied by this Court. 4. This case is set for jury trial beginning May 16, 2022. BACKGROUND 5. Although parties have rested, it is necessary for defendant to present additional relevant evidence of discovery. 6. The evidence that defendant seeks to offer is relevant discovery sought by plaintiff, answered by defendant, in which | was allegedly not received by plaintiff. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES 7. A trial court should reopen the evidence when the introduction of additional evidence clearly appears to be necessary to the administration of justice. Tex. R. Civ. P. 270. The decision to reopen the case to permit additional evidence is within the trial court's sound discretion. Poa Vs. Flories, 317 S.W. 3a 820, 828 (Tex. App-Fort Worth 2010, no pet.); Lopez Vs. Lopez, 55 S.W. 3d 194, 201 (Tex. App-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.); In re Hawk, 5 S.W. 3d 874, 876-77 (Tex. App-Houston [14t Dist.] 1999, no pet.). The trial court should liberally excersize that discretion to permit the full developement of the case. Lopez, 55 S.W. 3d at 201; In_re Hawk, 5 S.W. 3d at 877. 8. In deciding whether to allow additional evidence, a court should consider (1) whether the movant has been diligent in obtaining the evidence, (2) ‘whether the receipt of additional evidence will cause undue delay or injustice, and (3) whether the evidence will be decisive. Moore Vs. Jet Stream Invs., Ltd., 315 S.W. 3a 195, 201 (Tex. App-Texarkana 2010, pet. denied); Hernadez_ Vs.- Lautensack, 201 S.W. 3d 771, 779 (Tex. App-Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied); Lopez, 55 S.W. 3a 201. 9. The Court should reopen the evidence in this case for the following reasons: (a) Defendant was diligent in obtaining evidence requested by Plaintiff. (b) The receipt of evidence will not cause undue delay. (c) The receipt of evidence will not cause injustice. (4a) The evidence is decisive. CONCLUSTON 10. Plaintiff has brought a frivilous forward claim against defendant in an attempt to hold defendant responsible for plaintiff's own action(s). There is no basis in law or fact to support plaintiff's outrageous claim. No rational juror or [non]rationable juror would entertain plaintiff's baseless allegations against defendant. Plaintiff committed the crime that caused his out of state incarceration for two (2) weeks. Defendant, as a brother, made all necessary arrangements to bail plaintiff out when plaintiff was eligible. Defendant reimbursed himself the $2,000.00 amount owed to him by plaintiff which plaintiff now claims caused the ultimate loss of his company he valued at over $100,000.00. It's beyond impossible to believe plaintiff could loose an entire company valued at over $100,000.00 because of $2,000.00, and hold defendant responsible. PRAYER 11. For these reasons, defendant asks the Court to reopen the evidence. Respectfully submitted, Re SS. Bradley S. Abernathy Allan B. Polunsky Unit 3872 FM 350 South Livingston, Texas 77351 Defendant, pro se