Preview
FILED
10/14/2021 10:51 AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Rhonda Burks DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-19-10926
VASHONE RHODES; THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§§§§§§§§§§
IN
Plaintiff,
VS. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
JAMES GOMEZ; AND EXCLUSIVE
NATIONWIDE DELIVERY INC.;
Defendants. 160T“ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT
Plaintiff VASHONE RHODES moves for leave to exceed page limit with respect to
the Exhibits (attached as an “Appendix”) to Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Strike
Defendants’ Counter-Affidavits of Lennard A. Nadalo, M.D., F.A.C.R. and Robert Kadoko,
M.D., showing the Court as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
On April 6, 2020, the Judges of the District Courts of Dallas County signed a
“General Order," providing:
No Motion or Brief filed with the Court may exceed 25 one-
sided pages in length. Only one appendix, also limited to 25
one-sided pages in length may be filed supporting any
Motion or Brief. The use of any font less than 12 point, or
margins less than 1” on each side of a page is hereby
prohibited. Additionally, the use of reduced, multiple pages
(i.e.: Min-u-script) is hereby prohibited.
Permission to file a brief in excess of these page limitations
may be granted by the Presiding Judge of any particular
Court upon a showing of compelling reasons.
Although the existing local rules do not provide for, or reference, use of an
“appendix” in support of a motion or brief, to the extent the “appendix” referenced in the
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT - PAGE 1
new General Order places limits on the evidence that can be attached to any motion or
response to a motion, or brief in support of same, Plaintiff objects and asks that this Court
excuse him from having to comply with the “General Order” or, alternatively, grant him
leave to submit evidence as part of any “Appendix” or otherwise attached to Plaintiff’s
Amended Motion to Strike Defendants’ Counter-Affidavits of Lennard A. Nadalo, M.D.,
F.A.C.R. and Robert Kadoko, M.D., in excess of the 25-page limit.
ll. THE GENERAL ORDER VIOLATES TEX. R. CIV. P. 3A
As an initial matter, Plaintiff objects to the April 6t“ General Order as not being a
valid amendment to the Dallas County Local Rules. Certainly, district courts have the
authority to make and amend local rules governing practice before such courts. See Tex.
R. Civ. P. 3a. However, among other conditions, “any proposed local rule or amendment
shall not become effective until it is submitted and approved by the Supreme Court of
Texas.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 3a(3). And even assuming the General Order has been submitted
and approved, any amendment to the local rules “shall not become effective until at least
thirty days after its publication in a manner reasonably calculated to bring it to the attention
of attorneys practicing before the court or courts for which it is made.” Tex. R. Civ. P.
3a(4). Because thirty days have not passed since the “General Order” has been brought
to the attention of attorneys practicing before the court, the page limits are not effective.
Finally, Rule 3a prohibits the application of any local rule that determines the merits
of any matter. Tex. R. Civ. P. 3a(6). Because the “General Order” prohibits Plaintiff from
putting before the Court the entire text of the Affidavits he is trying to strike, the “General
Order” is merits-determinative. Accordingly, Plaintiff objects to its application here.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT - PAGE 2
Ill. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT
Alternatively, Plaintiff requests leave to submit evidence in support of his motion in
excess of the 25-page limit provided by the April 6th General Order. In support of his
Motion, Plaintiff present the Affidavits of Dr. Nadalo and Dr. Kadoko (the evidence at
issue), which collectively with their curriculum vitae, attachments, and reports span over
25 pages. Simply, Plaintiff cannot meet his burden without the submission of evidence
that will necessarily exceed 25 pages. As such, there is compelling reason to grant leave
to exceed the page limit.
IV. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
For these reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court either (1) sustain
his objection to the application of the April 6‘“ General Order or (2) grant his Motion for
Leave to Exceed Page Limit. Plaintiff further requests such other and additional relief to
which he may be justly entitled, whether at law or in equity.
Respectfully su bmitted,
WITHERITE LAW GROUP, PLLC
/s/ V. Paige Eldridge
By:
V. PAIGE ELDRIDGE
State Bar No. 24096747
paiqe.eldridqe@witheritlaw.com
SHELLY GRECO
State Bar No. 24008168
Shel|y.qreco(a)witheritelaw.com
10440 N. Central Expressway
Suite 400
Dallas, TX 75231-2228
214/378-6665
214/378-6670 (fax)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT - PAGE 3
gRTIFICATg 0F CONFERENCE
Pursuant to Dallas County District Court Local Rule 2.07, the undersigned hereby
certifies:
On September 16, 2021, counsel for movant and counsel for respondent
have personally conducted a conference at which there was a
substantive discussion of every item presented to the Court in this motion
and despite best efforts the counsel have not been able to resolve
those matters presented.
/s/ V. Paige Eldridge
V. Paige Eldridge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 14th day of October a true and
correct copy of this document was delivered to all counsel of record pursuant to the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure:
/s/ V. Paige Eldridge
V. Paige Eldridge
Mr. Randall G. Walters
Walters, Balido & Crain, LLP
Meadow Park Tower, 15th Floor
10440 North Central Expressway
Dallas, TX 75231
Adam B. LeCrone
The LeCrone Law Firm, P.C.
Wall Street Plaza
123 N. Crockett Street, Suite 200
Sherman, TX 75090
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT - PAGE 4
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Christee Estep on behalf of Paige Eldridge
Bar No. 24096747
Christee.estep@witheritelaw.com
Envelope ID: 58180310
Status as of 10/15/2021 10:52 AM CST
Associated Case Party: EXCLUSIVE NATIONWIDE DELIVERY, INC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Randall GWalters waltersedocsnotifications@wbclawfirm.com 10/14/2021 10:51:22 AM SENT
Nadine K Weatherall nadine.weatherall@wbclawfirm.com 10/14/2021 10:51 :22 AM SENT
Randall GWalters randy.waIters@wbclawfirm.com 10/14/2021 10:51:22 AM SENT
Associated Case Party: VASHONE RHODES
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Paige Eldridge paige.eldridge@ewlawyers.com 10/14/2021 10:51:22 AM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarN um ber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
V. Paige Eldridge paige.eldridge@witheritelaw.com 10/14/2021 10:51:22 AM SENT
PAIGE VELDRIDGE paiqe.eldridqe@ewlavwers.com 10/14/2021 10:51:22 AM ERROR
Craig Laird PCL@LA|RD.LAWYER 10/14/2021 10:51:22 AM SENT
Associated Case Party: JAMES GOMEZ
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Adam LeCrone eservice@lecronelaw.com 10/14/2021 10:51:22 AM SENT
Preview
FILED 10/14/2021 10:51 AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Rhonda Burks DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-19-10926 VASHONE RHODES; THE DISTRICT COURT OF §§§§§§§§§§ IN Plaintiff, VS. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS JAMES GOMEZ; AND EXCLUSIVE NATIONWIDE DELIVERY INC.; Defendants. 160T“ JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT Plaintiff VASHONE RHODES moves for leave to exceed page limit with respect to the Exhibits (attached as an “Appendix”) to Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Strike Defendants’ Counter-Affidavits of Lennard A. Nadalo, M.D., F.A.C.R. and Robert Kadoko, M.D., showing the Court as follows: I. INTRODUCTION On April 6, 2020, the Judges of the District Courts of Dallas County signed a “General Order," providing: No Motion or Brief filed with the Court may exceed 25 one- sided pages in length. Only one appendix, also limited to 25 one-sided pages in length may be filed supporting any Motion or Brief. The use of any font less than 12 point, or margins less than 1” on each side of a page is hereby prohibited. Additionally, the use of reduced, multiple pages (i.e.: Min-u-script) is hereby prohibited. Permission to file a brief in excess of these page limitations may be granted by the Presiding Judge of any particular Court upon a showing of compelling reasons. Although the existing local rules do not provide for, or reference, use of an “appendix” in support of a motion or brief, to the extent the “appendix” referenced in the PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT - PAGE 1 new General Order places limits on the evidence that can be attached to any motion or response to a motion, or brief in support of same, Plaintiff objects and asks that this Court excuse him from having to comply with the “General Order” or, alternatively, grant him leave to submit evidence as part of any “Appendix” or otherwise attached to Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Strike Defendants’ Counter-Affidavits of Lennard A. Nadalo, M.D., F.A.C.R. and Robert Kadoko, M.D., in excess of the 25-page limit. ll. THE GENERAL ORDER VIOLATES TEX. R. CIV. P. 3A As an initial matter, Plaintiff objects to the April 6t“ General Order as not being a valid amendment to the Dallas County Local Rules. Certainly, district courts have the authority to make and amend local rules governing practice before such courts. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 3a. However, among other conditions, “any proposed local rule or amendment shall not become effective until it is submitted and approved by the Supreme Court of Texas.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 3a(3). And even assuming the General Order has been submitted and approved, any amendment to the local rules “shall not become effective until at least thirty days after its publication in a manner reasonably calculated to bring it to the attention of attorneys practicing before the court or courts for which it is made.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 3a(4). Because thirty days have not passed since the “General Order” has been brought to the attention of attorneys practicing before the court, the page limits are not effective. Finally, Rule 3a prohibits the application of any local rule that determines the merits of any matter. Tex. R. Civ. P. 3a(6). Because the “General Order” prohibits Plaintiff from putting before the Court the entire text of the Affidavits he is trying to strike, the “General Order” is merits-determinative. Accordingly, Plaintiff objects to its application here. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT - PAGE 2 Ill. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT Alternatively, Plaintiff requests leave to submit evidence in support of his motion in excess of the 25-page limit provided by the April 6th General Order. In support of his Motion, Plaintiff present the Affidavits of Dr. Nadalo and Dr. Kadoko (the evidence at issue), which collectively with their curriculum vitae, attachments, and reports span over 25 pages. Simply, Plaintiff cannot meet his burden without the submission of evidence that will necessarily exceed 25 pages. As such, there is compelling reason to grant leave to exceed the page limit. IV. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER For these reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court either (1) sustain his objection to the application of the April 6‘“ General Order or (2) grant his Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit. Plaintiff further requests such other and additional relief to which he may be justly entitled, whether at law or in equity. Respectfully su bmitted, WITHERITE LAW GROUP, PLLC /s/ V. Paige Eldridge By: V. PAIGE ELDRIDGE State Bar No. 24096747 paiqe.eldridqe@witheritlaw.com SHELLY GRECO State Bar No. 24008168 Shel|y.qreco(a)witheritelaw.com 10440 N. Central Expressway Suite 400 Dallas, TX 75231-2228 214/378-6665 214/378-6670 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT - PAGE 3 gRTIFICATg 0F CONFERENCE Pursuant to Dallas County District Court Local Rule 2.07, the undersigned hereby certifies: On September 16, 2021, counsel for movant and counsel for respondent have personally conducted a conference at which there was a substantive discussion of every item presented to the Court in this motion and despite best efforts the counsel have not been able to resolve those matters presented. /s/ V. Paige Eldridge V. Paige Eldridge CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 14th day of October a true and correct copy of this document was delivered to all counsel of record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure: /s/ V. Paige Eldridge V. Paige Eldridge Mr. Randall G. Walters Walters, Balido & Crain, LLP Meadow Park Tower, 15th Floor 10440 North Central Expressway Dallas, TX 75231 Adam B. LeCrone The LeCrone Law Firm, P.C. Wall Street Plaza 123 N. Crockett Street, Suite 200 Sherman, TX 75090 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT - PAGE 4 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Christee Estep on behalf of Paige Eldridge Bar No. 24096747 Christee.estep@witheritelaw.com Envelope ID: 58180310 Status as of 10/15/2021 10:52 AM CST Associated Case Party: EXCLUSIVE NATIONWIDE DELIVERY, INC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Randall GWalters waltersedocsnotifications@wbclawfirm.com 10/14/2021 10:51:22 AM SENT Nadine K Weatherall nadine.weatherall@wbclawfirm.com 10/14/2021 10:51 :22 AM SENT Randall GWalters randy.waIters@wbclawfirm.com 10/14/2021 10:51:22 AM SENT Associated Case Party: VASHONE RHODES Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Paige Eldridge paige.eldridge@ewlawyers.com 10/14/2021 10:51:22 AM SENT Case Contacts Name BarN um ber Email TimestampSubmitted Status V. Paige Eldridge paige.eldridge@witheritelaw.com 10/14/2021 10:51:22 AM SENT PAIGE VELDRIDGE paiqe.eldridqe@ewlavwers.com 10/14/2021 10:51:22 AM ERROR Craig Laird PCL@LA|RD.LAWYER 10/14/2021 10:51:22 AM SENT Associated Case Party: JAMES GOMEZ Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Adam LeCrone eservice@lecronelaw.com 10/14/2021 10:51:22 AM SENT