Preview
FILED
9/28/2022 12:33 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Madison McCarrier DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-19-10926
VASHONE RHODES; THE DISTRICT COURT 0F
§§§§§§§§§§§
IN
Plaintiff,
VS. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
JAMES GOMEZ; AND EXCLUSIVE
NATIONWIDE DELIVERY INC.;
Defendants. 160T” JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JAMES GOMEZ’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION REGARDING THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF
DR. ROGER CLIFFORD D.C.
Plaintiff VASHONE RHODES files this Response to Defendant James Gomez’s
Motion for Reconsideration Regarding the Counter-Affidavit of Dr. Roger Clifford, D.C.,
based on the trial court’s order striking Defendant’s Counter-Affidavit of Dr. Clifford for
non-compliance with Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 18.001 (f).
I. ARGUMENT
Almost two years after this Court’s September 1, 2020 order striking Defendant’s
Counter-Affidavit of Roger Clifford, D.C., Defendant filed this motion for reconsideration,
requesting the Court reconsider its ruling in light of the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion in
In re Allstate Indemnity Co., 622 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. 2021). Defendant contends that In re
Allstate altered the degree of scrutiny to be applied to section 18.001 counter-affidavits,
such that Dr. Clifford’s Counter-Affidavit now satisfies the reasonable notice condition of
section 18.001.
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JAMES GOMEZ’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
REGARDING THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF DR. ROGER CLIFFORD, D.C. — Page 1
As an initial matter, Defendant’s motion—filed over twenty-three months after the
trial court’s order and just twelve days before trial begins—is untimely and should be
barred on the basis of waiver or Iaches.
Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right or intentional conduct
inconsistent with claiming it. Bluebonnet Sav. Bank, F. S.B. v. Grayridge Apartment
Homes, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 904, 911 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied).
Laches may apply when a party unreasonably delays in asserting a right and the delay
caused a good faith and detrimental change in the other party’s position. See id.; In re
Laibe Corp., 307 S.W.3d 314, 318 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).
Defendant's sole basis for requesting reconsideration is a Texas Supreme Court
opinion that issued over sixteen months ago, on May 7, 2021. Defendant does not explain
why he waited until twelve days prior to trial to file this motion. Over twenty-three months
have now passed since the trial court’s order, during which time Plaintiff has proceeded
with discovery and trial preparation as if he can rely on his provider Premier Injury Clinic’s
initial affidavit as sufficient evidence to support a finding at trial that its medical services
were necessary and the charges were reasonable, without adducing expert testimony.
As such, Plaintiff would suffer unfair prejudice and surprise by reconsideration of
the trial court’s ruling that would require it to bring its providerto trial or retain a new expert
without sufficient notice.
Regardless of the timeliness issue, In re Allstate does not mandate a different
ruling on the sufficiency of Dr. Clifford’s Affidavit. Defendant summarily contends:
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JAMES GOMEZ’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
REGARDING THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF DR. ROGER CLIFFORD, D.C. — Page 2
After the aforementioned ruling to strike the counter-affidavit at issue, In re
Allstate was issued by the Texas Supreme Court on May 7, 2021.
Thereafter, a tidal wave of change occurred throughout a majority of the
courts in this state, in regard to the degree of scrutiny that was to be applied
to §18.001 counter-affidavits. See In re Allstate Indemnity Co., 622 S.W.3d
870 (Tex. 2021).
Defendant James Gomez herein asserts, that the fact issues in this case
impacted by the counter-affidavit of Dr. Roger Clifford, D.C. are material and
require reconsideration in light of the case law currently controlling §18.001
counter-affidavits.
Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration, p. 2.
Plaintiff disagrees. The supreme court in In re Allstate simply explained that the
reasonable-notice condition of section 18.001 is similar to the familiar “fair notice”
requirement for pleadings under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47 and requires that
controverting affidavits provide sufficient information to enable the opposing party to
prepare a defense or response. In re Allstate Indem. Co., 622 S.W.3d at 879—80. There,
the supreme court considered a controverting affidavit that challenged only the
reasonableness of medical charges and held that the controverting affidavit satisfied the
reasonable-notice requirement because it itemized each charge being controverted and
explained in detail the controverting witness’s basis for opining that the charges were
unreasonable by comparing them to the median charges from the Context4Healthcare
database for the same services, in the same timeframe and the same zip code. Id. The
supreme court explained that the plaintiff’s “ability to fully develop her attack on the
reliability of [the controverting witness's] methodology is ample evidence that the
counteraffidavit provides reasonable notice of the bases for [Defendant]'s challenges.” Id.
Dr. Clifford’s Counter-Affidavit in this case is markedly different than the Affidavit
considered in In re Allstate. To begin with, Dr. Clifford challenged both medical necessity
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JAMES GOMEZ’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
REGARDING THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF DR. ROGER CLIFFORD, D.C. — Page 3
and the reasonableness of charges, and Plaintiff moved to strike Dr. Clifford’s Affidavit
not only for a lack of reasonable notice, but also because his opinions improperly rely on
the adequacy of the provider’s documentation and causation. Defendant fails to consider
or challenge all the bases upon which the tria| court could have stricken Dr. Clifford’s
Counter-Affidavit.
As Plaintiff urged in his motion to strike,
[l]t is immaterial whether the documentation met standards set out by the
American Chiropractic Association Clinical Documentation Manual, as the
only relevant inquiries are whether the services were necessary to treat the
patient and the charges for those services were reasonable. If Dr. Clifford
cannot render an opinion due to a lack of documentation, he should have
stated as much instead of rejecting the treatment altogether.
See Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, pp. 3—4. Nothing in In re Allstate justifies reconsideration
of this basis for striking Dr. Clifford’s Affidavit.
Further, section 18.001 makes clear that “[t]he counteraffidavit may not be used to
controvert the causation element of the cause of action that is the basis for the civil
action." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 18.001(f). In re Allstate does not alter this
prohibition, indeed, does not even discuss it, and this is a proper basis for striking Dr.
Clifford’s Affidavit.
As for whether Dr. Clifford’s opinions satisfy the reasonable-notice condition of
section 18.001, unlike the controverting witness in In re Allstate, Dr. Clifford does not cite
any reference or source he used to determine the amounts he says Plaintiffs medical
provider, Premier Injury Clinics, should have charged. He also does not explain why the
amounts actually charged are unreasonable in the local geographic area and based on
industry standards. Although he states what he charges for some services, he notes that
his reasonable-charge amounts are higher than what he personally charges. Dr. Clifford
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JAMES GOMEZ’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
REGARDING THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF DR. ROGER CLIFFORD, D.C. — Page 4
also broadly urges that the provider's supporting documentation does not satisfy
documentation guidelines for billing, but he does not specifically identify any deficient
documentation or explain how any alleged deficiencies relate to the reasonableness of
amounts charged for the chiropractic services provided.
Dr. Clifford fails to provide sufficient information for Plaintiff to prepare any attack
on the reliability of his controverting opinions. His Counter-Affidavit does not meet even
a minimal “fair notice" threshold, and therefore, fails to satisfy section 18.001(f)’s
reasonable notice condition.
ll. CONCLUSION
Defendant's motion requesting the trial court reconsider its order striking the
Counter-Affidavit of Dr. Clifford is barred by waiver or laches. Further, the Texas Supreme
Court’s decision in In re Allstate Indemnity Co. does not apply to all of the asserted
grounds for striking Defendant’s Counter-Affidavit nor alter the outcome of the
reasonable-notice analysis in this case. Consequently, because Defendant’s Counter-
Affidavit of Roger Clifford, D.C. fails to comply with the conditions of Texas Civil Practice
& Remedies Code § 18.001(f), Plaintiff asks that this Court deny Defendant’s Motion for
Reconsideration and stand by its prior ruling.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff VASHONE RHONES
requests that this Court deny Defendant James Gomez’s Motion to Reconsider and award
him any other relief to which he may be justly entitled.
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JAMES GOMEZ’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
REGARDING THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF DR. ROGER CLIFFORD, D.C. — Page 5
Respectfully submitted,
WITHERITE LAW GROUP, PLLC
By 12%”
v. PAIG’E ELDRIDGE
State Bar No. 24096747
paiqe.eldridqe(a)witheritlaw.com
SHELLY GRECO
State Bar No. 24008168
Shel|v.qreco@witheritelaw.com
10440 N. Central Expressway
Suite 400
Dallas, TX 75231-2228
214/378-6665
214/378-6670 (fax)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
|
hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document
has been forwarded to all counsel of record on this 28th day of September, 2022, pursuant
am
to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
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 RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JAMES GOMEZ’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
REGARDING THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF DR. ROGER CLIFFORD, D.C. — Page 6
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: 68695777
Status as of 9/28/2022 12:43 PM CST
Associated Case Party: VASHONE RHODES
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Paige Eldridge paige.eldridge@ewlawyers.com 9/28/2022 12:33:57 PM SENT
Paige Eldridge paige.eldridge@witheritelaw.com 9/28/2022 12:33:57 PM SENT
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: 68695777
Status as of 9/28/2022 12:43 PM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
V. Paige Eldridge paige.eldridge@witheritelaw.com 9/28/2022 12:33:57 PM SENT
Craig Laird PCL@LA|RD.LAWYER 9/28/2022 12:33:57 PM SENT
PAIGE VELDRIDGE paiqe.eldridqe@ewlawyers.com 9/28/2022 12:33:57 PM ERROR
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: 68695777
Status as of 9/28/2022 12:43 PM CST
Associated Case Party: EXCLUSIVE NATIONWIDE DELIVERY, INC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Randall GWalters waltersedocsnotifications@wbclawfirm.com 9/28/2022 12:33:57 PM SENT
Nadine K Weatherall nadine.weatherall@wbclawfirm.com 9/28/2022 12:33:57 PM SENT
Randall GWalters randy.walters@wbclawfirm.com 9/28/2022 12:33:57 PM SENT
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: 68695777
Status as of 9/28/2022 12:43 PM CST
Associated Case Party: JAMES GOMEZ
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Adam LeCrone eservice@lecronelaw.com 9/28/2022 12:33:57 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 9/28/2022 12:33 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Madison McCarrier DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-19-10926 VASHONE RHODES; THE DISTRICT COURT 0F §§§§§§§§§§§ IN Plaintiff, VS. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS JAMES GOMEZ; AND EXCLUSIVE NATIONWIDE DELIVERY INC.; Defendants. 160T” JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JAMES GOMEZ’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION REGARDING THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF DR. ROGER CLIFFORD D.C. Plaintiff VASHONE RHODES files this Response to Defendant James Gomez’s Motion for Reconsideration Regarding the Counter-Affidavit of Dr. Roger Clifford, D.C., based on the trial court’s order striking Defendant’s Counter-Affidavit of Dr. Clifford for non-compliance with Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 18.001 (f). I. ARGUMENT Almost two years after this Court’s September 1, 2020 order striking Defendant’s Counter-Affidavit of Roger Clifford, D.C., Defendant filed this motion for reconsideration, requesting the Court reconsider its ruling in light of the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion in In re Allstate Indemnity Co., 622 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. 2021). Defendant contends that In re Allstate altered the degree of scrutiny to be applied to section 18.001 counter-affidavits, such that Dr. Clifford’s Counter-Affidavit now satisfies the reasonable notice condition of section 18.001. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JAMES GOMEZ’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION REGARDING THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF DR. ROGER CLIFFORD, D.C. — Page 1 As an initial matter, Defendant’s motion—filed over twenty-three months after the trial court’s order and just twelve days before trial begins—is untimely and should be barred on the basis of waiver or Iaches. Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right or intentional conduct inconsistent with claiming it. Bluebonnet Sav. Bank, F. S.B. v. Grayridge Apartment Homes, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 904, 911 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied). Laches may apply when a party unreasonably delays in asserting a right and the delay caused a good faith and detrimental change in the other party’s position. See id.; In re Laibe Corp., 307 S.W.3d 314, 318 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Defendant's sole basis for requesting reconsideration is a Texas Supreme Court opinion that issued over sixteen months ago, on May 7, 2021. Defendant does not explain why he waited until twelve days prior to trial to file this motion. Over twenty-three months have now passed since the trial court’s order, during which time Plaintiff has proceeded with discovery and trial preparation as if he can rely on his provider Premier Injury Clinic’s initial affidavit as sufficient evidence to support a finding at trial that its medical services were necessary and the charges were reasonable, without adducing expert testimony. As such, Plaintiff would suffer unfair prejudice and surprise by reconsideration of the trial court’s ruling that would require it to bring its providerto trial or retain a new expert without sufficient notice. Regardless of the timeliness issue, In re Allstate does not mandate a different ruling on the sufficiency of Dr. Clifford’s Affidavit. Defendant summarily contends: PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JAMES GOMEZ’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION REGARDING THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF DR. ROGER CLIFFORD, D.C. — Page 2 After the aforementioned ruling to strike the counter-affidavit at issue, In re Allstate was issued by the Texas Supreme Court on May 7, 2021. Thereafter, a tidal wave of change occurred throughout a majority of the courts in this state, in regard to the degree of scrutiny that was to be applied to §18.001 counter-affidavits. See In re Allstate Indemnity Co., 622 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. 2021). Defendant James Gomez herein asserts, that the fact issues in this case impacted by the counter-affidavit of Dr. Roger Clifford, D.C. are material and require reconsideration in light of the case law currently controlling §18.001 counter-affidavits. Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration, p. 2. Plaintiff disagrees. The supreme court in In re Allstate simply explained that the reasonable-notice condition of section 18.001 is similar to the familiar “fair notice” requirement for pleadings under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47 and requires that controverting affidavits provide sufficient information to enable the opposing party to prepare a defense or response. In re Allstate Indem. Co., 622 S.W.3d at 879—80. There, the supreme court considered a controverting affidavit that challenged only the reasonableness of medical charges and held that the controverting affidavit satisfied the reasonable-notice requirement because it itemized each charge being controverted and explained in detail the controverting witness’s basis for opining that the charges were unreasonable by comparing them to the median charges from the Context4Healthcare database for the same services, in the same timeframe and the same zip code. Id. The supreme court explained that the plaintiff’s “ability to fully develop her attack on the reliability of [the controverting witness's] methodology is ample evidence that the counteraffidavit provides reasonable notice of the bases for [Defendant]'s challenges.” Id. Dr. Clifford’s Counter-Affidavit in this case is markedly different than the Affidavit considered in In re Allstate. To begin with, Dr. Clifford challenged both medical necessity PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JAMES GOMEZ’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION REGARDING THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF DR. ROGER CLIFFORD, D.C. — Page 3 and the reasonableness of charges, and Plaintiff moved to strike Dr. Clifford’s Affidavit not only for a lack of reasonable notice, but also because his opinions improperly rely on the adequacy of the provider’s documentation and causation. Defendant fails to consider or challenge all the bases upon which the tria| court could have stricken Dr. Clifford’s Counter-Affidavit. As Plaintiff urged in his motion to strike, [l]t is immaterial whether the documentation met standards set out by the American Chiropractic Association Clinical Documentation Manual, as the only relevant inquiries are whether the services were necessary to treat the patient and the charges for those services were reasonable. If Dr. Clifford cannot render an opinion due to a lack of documentation, he should have stated as much instead of rejecting the treatment altogether. See Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, pp. 3—4. Nothing in In re Allstate justifies reconsideration of this basis for striking Dr. Clifford’s Affidavit. Further, section 18.001 makes clear that “[t]he counteraffidavit may not be used to controvert the causation element of the cause of action that is the basis for the civil action." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 18.001(f). In re Allstate does not alter this prohibition, indeed, does not even discuss it, and this is a proper basis for striking Dr. Clifford’s Affidavit. As for whether Dr. Clifford’s opinions satisfy the reasonable-notice condition of section 18.001, unlike the controverting witness in In re Allstate, Dr. Clifford does not cite any reference or source he used to determine the amounts he says Plaintiffs medical provider, Premier Injury Clinics, should have charged. He also does not explain why the amounts actually charged are unreasonable in the local geographic area and based on industry standards. Although he states what he charges for some services, he notes that his reasonable-charge amounts are higher than what he personally charges. Dr. Clifford PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JAMES GOMEZ’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION REGARDING THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF DR. ROGER CLIFFORD, D.C. — Page 4 also broadly urges that the provider's supporting documentation does not satisfy documentation guidelines for billing, but he does not specifically identify any deficient documentation or explain how any alleged deficiencies relate to the reasonableness of amounts charged for the chiropractic services provided. Dr. Clifford fails to provide sufficient information for Plaintiff to prepare any attack on the reliability of his controverting opinions. His Counter-Affidavit does not meet even a minimal “fair notice" threshold, and therefore, fails to satisfy section 18.001(f)’s reasonable notice condition. ll. CONCLUSION Defendant's motion requesting the trial court reconsider its order striking the Counter-Affidavit of Dr. Clifford is barred by waiver or laches. Further, the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in In re Allstate Indemnity Co. does not apply to all of the asserted grounds for striking Defendant’s Counter-Affidavit nor alter the outcome of the reasonable-notice analysis in this case. Consequently, because Defendant’s Counter- Affidavit of Roger Clifford, D.C. fails to comply with the conditions of Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 18.001(f), Plaintiff asks that this Court deny Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration and stand by its prior ruling. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff VASHONE RHONES requests that this Court deny Defendant James Gomez’s Motion to Reconsider and award him any other relief to which he may be justly entitled. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JAMES GOMEZ’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION REGARDING THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF DR. ROGER CLIFFORD, D.C. — Page 5 Respectfully submitted, WITHERITE LAW GROUP, PLLC By 12%” v. PAIG’E ELDRIDGE State Bar No. 24096747 paiqe.eldridqe(a)witheritlaw.com SHELLY GRECO State Bar No. 24008168 Shel|v.qreco@witheritelaw.com 10440 N. Central Expressway Suite 400 Dallas, TX 75231-2228 214/378-6665 214/378-6670 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been forwarded to all counsel of record on this 28th day of September, 2022, pursuant am to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 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 RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JAMES GOMEZ’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION REGARDING THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF DR. ROGER CLIFFORD, D.C. — Page 6 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: 68695777 Status as of 9/28/2022 12:43 PM CST Associated Case Party: VASHONE RHODES Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Paige Eldridge paige.eldridge@ewlawyers.com 9/28/2022 12:33:57 PM SENT Paige Eldridge paige.eldridge@witheritelaw.com 9/28/2022 12:33:57 PM SENT 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: 68695777 Status as of 9/28/2022 12:43 PM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status V. Paige Eldridge paige.eldridge@witheritelaw.com 9/28/2022 12:33:57 PM SENT Craig Laird PCL@LA|RD.LAWYER 9/28/2022 12:33:57 PM SENT PAIGE VELDRIDGE paiqe.eldridqe@ewlawyers.com 9/28/2022 12:33:57 PM ERROR 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: 68695777 Status as of 9/28/2022 12:43 PM CST Associated Case Party: EXCLUSIVE NATIONWIDE DELIVERY, INC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Randall GWalters waltersedocsnotifications@wbclawfirm.com 9/28/2022 12:33:57 PM SENT Nadine K Weatherall nadine.weatherall@wbclawfirm.com 9/28/2022 12:33:57 PM SENT Randall GWalters randy.walters@wbclawfirm.com 9/28/2022 12:33:57 PM SENT 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: 68695777 Status as of 9/28/2022 12:43 PM CST Associated Case Party: JAMES GOMEZ Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Adam LeCrone eservice@lecronelaw.com 9/28/2022 12:33:57 PM SENT