Preview
FILED
6/22/2021 5:29 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
K R. S MLLAS CO., TEXAS
B|~ aéemymekg A22: mgzsraaaaam
FAX: 214.740.1499
KSINGAPURA@BELLNUNNALLY.COM
June 22, 2021
Via E-File and Email
The Honorable Ashley Wysocki
c/o Jonathan McKinnon, Court Coordinator
imckinnonébdallascourtsorg
George L. Allen, Sr. Courts Building
44th Judicial District Court
600 Commerce St., 5th Floor New Tower
Dallas, TX 75202
Re: Cause No. DC-20-19191; Paul and Leslie Gleiser, et al. v. Herschel Hawthorne, et
al.; In the 44th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas
Dear Judge Wysocki:
As a follow-up to this morning’s hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Determine whether
Roy E. Mathews made a General Appearance for Thomas Hartland—Mackie (the “Motion”),
Mr. Mathews submits this short letter brief as requested and permitted by the Court.
As the Court recognized, case law addressing a general appearance within the context of
waiving a special appearance (TRCP 120a) is not relevant to the Motion or facts before the Court.
The key inquiry is, whether Mr. Mathews’ appearance at the TRO hearing on January 7 has the
same force and effect of Mr. Hartland-Mackie, himself, or an attorney he authorized, made a
general appearance as if citation had been duly issued and served.1 Tex. R. CiV. P. 120.
Although unable to find case law directly on point, the attached decision of Perkola v.
Koelling and Associates, Inc. is instructive to the Court’s decision. Perkola is not a special
appearance case and does not discuss Rule 120a; it dealt with a plea of privilege. In Perkola, the
Court held Defendant William Perkola did not make a general appearance by having his attorney
contest an interlocutory temporary injunction, even though he had not been served with citation,
when the temporary injunction hearing did not resolve any issues of law or fact in the main case.
Perkola v. Koelling and Assocs., Inc, 601 S.W.2d 110, 112 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1980, no writ).
The opinion notes that Mr. Perkola’s attorney had agreed to accept service, but that such an
agreement did not change the Court’s ultimate decision that no general appearance was made. Id.
As discussed this morning, each of the cases submitted by Plaintiffs in their courtesy binder
are readily distinguishable on three fundamental bases: (i) service of process occurred, (ii) the
defendant appeared pro se or authorized an attorney to appear in Court, or (iii) the issue involved
special appearances under Rule 120a. Given the Court’s recognition of the distinction between
1
This issue is being framed without waiver of Mr. Mathews’ position that he never appeared nor attempted
to appear on behalf of Mr. Hartland-Mackie.
l 2323 ROSS AVENUE - SUITE 1900 -
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201|214.T40.1400 |WWW.BELLNUNNALLY.COM
B N BELLNUNNALLV
CO"P'S‘-__QRS
3x
”magi;
those cases and the present case, Mr. Mathews understands the Court does not need briefing on
the inapplicability of those cases.
We thank the Court for its time this morning at the hearing and consideration of the attached
case. We stand ready to provide any additional information at the Court’s request.
Respectfully submitted,
Kartik R. Singa ra
KRS/reb
Attachment
cc: Jeffrey S. Lowenstein (firm)
Danielle P. Canfield (firm)
Rebecca Lubinksi (firm)
Douglas W. Brady (via efile and email)
William F. Sharp (via efile and email)
5929605_1.docx
Perkola v. Koelling and Associates, lnc., 601 S.W.2d 110 (1980)
Defendant did not waive his plea of privilege by
601 S.W.2d 110 contesting interlocutory temporary injunction,
even though defendant had not been served with
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Dallas.
citation, where the temporary injunction hearing
did not resolve any issues of law or fact involved
William Floyd PERKOLA, Appellant,
in main case, and defendant's attorney evidently
V. had agreed to accept service of process. Vernon's
KOELLING AND Ann.Civ.St. art. 1995.
ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellee. 7 Cases that cite this headnote
No. 20396.
l
[3] Pleading 0- Waiver of Objections to Plea or
May 20, 1980. Answer or Want Thereof
|
In absence of anything in record to show that
Rehearing Denied June 11, 1980. defendant's special exceptions were presented
to court for decision prior to plea of privilege
Synopsis hearing, filing of the special exceptions did not
Appeal was taken fiom judgment entered by the 192nd waive the plea. Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1995.
District Court, Dallas County, Snowden M. Leftwich, J.,
denying defendant's plea of privilege. The Court of Civil 2 Cases that cite this headnote
Appeals, Humphreys, J., held that: (1) defendant did not
waive his plea of privilege by contesting interlocutory
temporary injunction, even though defendant had not been
served with citation, where the temporary injunction hearing
Attorneys and Law Firms
did not resolve any issues of law or fact involved in main
case, and defendant's attorney evidently had agreed to accept *111 Maurice Bresenhan, Jr., Bresenhan, Martin & Wingate,
service of process, and (2) in absence of anything in record Houston, for appellant.
to show that defendant's special exceptions were presented to
court for decision prior t0 plea of privilege hearing, filing of
James A. Williams, Bailey, Williams, Westfall, Lee & Fowler,
the special exceptions did not waive the plea. Dallas, for appellee.
Before ROBERTSON, CARVER and HUMPHREYS, JJ.
Reversed and judgment rendered that cause be transferred.
Opinion
HUMPHREYS, Justice.
West Headnotes (3)
This is an appeal from the denial of William Floyd
Perkola's plea of privilege. Perkola contends that the
[1] Pleading 0- Waiver of Objections to Plea or
ruling was erroneous because no venue exception to
Answer or Want Thereof
Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 1995 (Vernon 1964) applies, and
Generally, party will waive plea of privilege if because he did not waive his plea of privilege by appearing at
he invokes power of court in manner which a temporary injunction hearing and filing special exceptions
negatives continuing intent to insist upon the after he filed the plea. We agree with Perkola and reverse the
plea. Vernon's Ann.CiV.St. art. 1995. denial of his plea of privilege and render judgment that the
cause be transferred to Harris County.
1 Cases that cite this headnote
The facts are undisputed. Koelling and Associates, Inc. filed
[2] Pleading 0- Waiver of Objections to Plea or suit for temporary injunction, permanent injunction, and
Answer or Want Thereof damages against Perkola. This court has previously decided
the appeal from the temporary injunction. Perkola v. Koelling
WESTLAW © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
Perkola v. Koelling and Associates, lnc., 601 S.W.2d 110 (1980)
& Associates, Inc., No. 20323 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas, February custody of the children pending final hearing on the main
7, 1980). On November 16, 1979, at approximately 8:30 a. m, suit will not waive a plea of privilege. Box v. Fleming,
Perkola filed his plea of privilege t0 be sued in Harris County. 484 S.W.2d 617, 619 (Tex.Civ.App. Eastland 1972, no writ);
Later that day he filed his original answer, special exceptions, Green v. Green, 424 S.W.2d 479, 481 (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler
and a memorandum in support of his special exceptions, in 1968, no writ). Similarly, appearance in a habeas corpus
At this time, citation had not been served on him.
that order. proceeding prior to a suit for custody of a child, when the
On that same day, however, he also appeared for a hearing on party had not been served, was not a waiver of a plea of
the temporary injunction. At the subsequent plea of privilege privilege. Knollhoff V. Norris, 152 Tex. 231, 256 S.W.2d
hearing, the court overruled the plea, and made no findings. 79 (1953). Also, an attack on a temporary injunction in
a plea in abatement, and in the answer which is directed
Perkola contends that no venue exception applies, that he did solely at the temporary injunction, is not a waiver. Gibson v.
not waive his plea of privilege by filing special exceptions State, 288 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1956, writ
and appearing at the temporary injunction hearing, and that dism'd); Powell v. Goldsmith, 164 S.W.2d 45 (Tex.Civ.App.
venue was established as a matter of law in the county of Texarkana 1942, writ dism'd). The court in Powell, quoted
his residence pursuant to Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 4656 dictum in McKinney v. Texas Life Insurance Co., 143 S.W.2d
(Vernon 1940). Koelling & Associates does not assert on 789, 790 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1940, writ dism'd judgmt.
appeal that a venue exception applies, but rather that Perkola cor), for the proposition that venue relates only to the merits
waived his plea and that article 4656 is inapplicable. Because and not to interlocutory matters “that have no relation to an
we hold that Perkola did not waive his plea of privilege, we issue, either of law or fact, going to the merits of the case.”
need not address Perkola's contention under article 4656.
[2] We hold that Perkola did not waive his plea by contesting
Koelling asserts that Perkola waived his plea in two respects. the interlocutory temporary injunction. Perkola's appearance
First, it argues that he waived it by voluntarily appearing at the at this hearing on an ancillary matter was not an appearance in
temporary injunction hearing although he had not been served the main case. The main suit, for a permanent injunction and
with citation. Second, it contends that the plea was waived damages, will be litigated subsequently, and this temporary
when Perkola filed special exceptions and a brief in support injunction hearing did not resolve any issues of law or fact
of his exceptions without making them subject to the plea. in the main case. Midland Building & Loan Association V.
Sparks Chapel Colored M.E. Church in America, 35 S.W.2d
Concerning the appearance at the temporary injunction 774, 775 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1931, no writ). Furthermore,
hearing, Perkola argues that his appearance was not a the fact that Perkola had not been served with citation does
waiver because he would have been bound by the temporary not change our view. His attorney evidently had agreed to
injunction even if he had not appeared and that this was accept service of process, which will not waive a plea of
not an appearance in the main suit but only in a interim privilege. See Winniford v. Holloman, 227 S.W. 1114, 1115
proceeding. Koelling counters that by voluntarily appearing (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1921, no writ). It is also argued that
for the temporary injunction hearing when he had not been Perkola agreed to a continuance of the hearing. We can find
cited, Perkola took action in the court which he was not nothing in the record which shows that Perkola requested or
compelled to take, and thereby waived his plea. We cannot contested a continuance, or in any manner invoked the power
agree. of the court on the matter.
[l] Generally, a party will waive a plea of privilege if he [3] Perkola also filed special exceptions after filing his plea,
invokes the power of the court in a manner which negatives and Koelling contends this was a waiver of the plea. Nothing
a continuing intent to insist upon the plea. R. McDonald,
1 in the record reveals that Perkola presented these exceptions
Texas Civil Practice s 4.40 (rev. 1965). For instance, a to the court for a ruling. In the absence of anything in the
defendant can waive his plea by contesting a motion to sever record to show that these exceptions were presented to the
the case. Smith v. Strauch, 96 S.W.2d 554, 555 (Tex.Civ.App. court for decision prior to the plea of privilege hearing, the
San Antonio 1936, no writ). On the other hand, courts have filing of the special exceptions does not waive the plea. Pit
held that appearing in other matters prior t0 the main suit will Construction Co. v. West Texas Equipment C0., 494 S.W.2d
not waive the plea. For example, appearing at a hearing to 642, 644 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1973, writ dism'd); Geary,
show cause why the plaintiff should not be *112 awarded
WESTLAW © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2
Perkola v. Koelling and Associates, lnc., 601 S.W.2d 110 (1980)
Hamilton, Brice & Lewis v. Coastal Transpofi Co., 399
S.W.2d 878, 880 (Tex.CiV.App. Dallas 1966, no writ).
All Citations
Reversed and judgment rendered that the cause be transferred 601 S,W_2d 110
to Harris County, Texas.
End of Document © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.
Government Works.
WESTLAW © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
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.
Tonya Stephenson on behalf of Kartik Singapura
Bar No. 24083863
tstephenson@bellnunnally.com
Envelope ID: 54666203
Status as of 6/28/2021 8:36 AM CST
Associated Case Party: PAUL GLEISER
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Douglas W. Brady 2841770 dougbrady@bradybradylaw.com 6/22/2021 5:29:15 PM SENT
William F.Sharp Wi||iamSharp@BradyBradyLaw.com 6/22/2021 5:29:15 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Jeffrey S.Lowenstein jlowenstein@be||nunnally.com 6/22/2021 5:29:15 PM SENT
Ruth Brearley rbrearley@bellnunnally.com 6/22/2021 5:29:15 PM SENT
Tonya C.Stephenson tstephenson@bellnunnally.com 6/22/2021 5:29:15 PM SENT
Rebecca Lubinski rlubinski@bellnunnally.com 6/22/2021 5:29:15 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: HERSCHEL HAWTHORNE LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Kartik Singapura ksingapura@bellnunnally.com 6/22/2021 5:29:15 PM SENT
Danielle Canfield dcanfield@bellnunnally.com 6/22/2021 5:29:15 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 6/22/2021 5:29 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK K R. S MLLAS CO., TEXAS B|~ aéemymekg A22: mgzsraaaaam FAX: 214.740.1499 KSINGAPURA@BELLNUNNALLY.COM June 22, 2021 Via E-File and Email The Honorable Ashley Wysocki c/o Jonathan McKinnon, Court Coordinator imckinnonébdallascourtsorg George L. Allen, Sr. Courts Building 44th Judicial District Court 600 Commerce St., 5th Floor New Tower Dallas, TX 75202 Re: Cause No. DC-20-19191; Paul and Leslie Gleiser, et al. v. Herschel Hawthorne, et al.; In the 44th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas Dear Judge Wysocki: As a follow-up to this morning’s hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Determine whether Roy E. Mathews made a General Appearance for Thomas Hartland—Mackie (the “Motion”), Mr. Mathews submits this short letter brief as requested and permitted by the Court. As the Court recognized, case law addressing a general appearance within the context of waiving a special appearance (TRCP 120a) is not relevant to the Motion or facts before the Court. The key inquiry is, whether Mr. Mathews’ appearance at the TRO hearing on January 7 has the same force and effect of Mr. Hartland-Mackie, himself, or an attorney he authorized, made a general appearance as if citation had been duly issued and served.1 Tex. R. CiV. P. 120. Although unable to find case law directly on point, the attached decision of Perkola v. Koelling and Associates, Inc. is instructive to the Court’s decision. Perkola is not a special appearance case and does not discuss Rule 120a; it dealt with a plea of privilege. In Perkola, the Court held Defendant William Perkola did not make a general appearance by having his attorney contest an interlocutory temporary injunction, even though he had not been served with citation, when the temporary injunction hearing did not resolve any issues of law or fact in the main case. Perkola v. Koelling and Assocs., Inc, 601 S.W.2d 110, 112 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1980, no writ). The opinion notes that Mr. Perkola’s attorney had agreed to accept service, but that such an agreement did not change the Court’s ultimate decision that no general appearance was made. Id. As discussed this morning, each of the cases submitted by Plaintiffs in their courtesy binder are readily distinguishable on three fundamental bases: (i) service of process occurred, (ii) the defendant appeared pro se or authorized an attorney to appear in Court, or (iii) the issue involved special appearances under Rule 120a. Given the Court’s recognition of the distinction between 1 This issue is being framed without waiver of Mr. Mathews’ position that he never appeared nor attempted to appear on behalf of Mr. Hartland-Mackie. l 2323 ROSS AVENUE - SUITE 1900 - DALLAS, TEXAS 75201|214.T40.1400 |WWW.BELLNUNNALLY.COM B N BELLNUNNALLV CO"P'S‘-__QRS 3x ”magi; those cases and the present case, Mr. Mathews understands the Court does not need briefing on the inapplicability of those cases. We thank the Court for its time this morning at the hearing and consideration of the attached case. We stand ready to provide any additional information at the Court’s request. Respectfully submitted, Kartik R. Singa ra KRS/reb Attachment cc: Jeffrey S. Lowenstein (firm) Danielle P. Canfield (firm) Rebecca Lubinksi (firm) Douglas W. Brady (via efile and email) William F. Sharp (via efile and email) 5929605_1.docx Perkola v. Koelling and Associates, lnc., 601 S.W.2d 110 (1980) Defendant did not waive his plea of privilege by 601 S.W.2d 110 contesting interlocutory temporary injunction, even though defendant had not been served with Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Dallas. citation, where the temporary injunction hearing did not resolve any issues of law or fact involved William Floyd PERKOLA, Appellant, in main case, and defendant's attorney evidently V. had agreed to accept service of process. Vernon's KOELLING AND Ann.Civ.St. art. 1995. ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellee. 7 Cases that cite this headnote No. 20396. l [3] Pleading 0- Waiver of Objections to Plea or May 20, 1980. Answer or Want Thereof | In absence of anything in record to show that Rehearing Denied June 11, 1980. defendant's special exceptions were presented to court for decision prior to plea of privilege Synopsis hearing, filing of the special exceptions did not Appeal was taken fiom judgment entered by the 192nd waive the plea. Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1995. District Court, Dallas County, Snowden M. Leftwich, J., denying defendant's plea of privilege. The Court of Civil 2 Cases that cite this headnote Appeals, Humphreys, J., held that: (1) defendant did not waive his plea of privilege by contesting interlocutory temporary injunction, even though defendant had not been served with citation, where the temporary injunction hearing Attorneys and Law Firms did not resolve any issues of law or fact involved in main case, and defendant's attorney evidently had agreed to accept *111 Maurice Bresenhan, Jr., Bresenhan, Martin & Wingate, service of process, and (2) in absence of anything in record Houston, for appellant. to show that defendant's special exceptions were presented to court for decision prior t0 plea of privilege hearing, filing of James A. Williams, Bailey, Williams, Westfall, Lee & Fowler, the special exceptions did not waive the plea. Dallas, for appellee. Before ROBERTSON, CARVER and HUMPHREYS, JJ. Reversed and judgment rendered that cause be transferred. Opinion HUMPHREYS, Justice. West Headnotes (3) This is an appeal from the denial of William Floyd Perkola's plea of privilege. Perkola contends that the [1] Pleading 0- Waiver of Objections to Plea or ruling was erroneous because no venue exception to Answer or Want Thereof Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 1995 (Vernon 1964) applies, and Generally, party will waive plea of privilege if because he did not waive his plea of privilege by appearing at he invokes power of court in manner which a temporary injunction hearing and filing special exceptions negatives continuing intent to insist upon the after he filed the plea. We agree with Perkola and reverse the plea. Vernon's Ann.CiV.St. art. 1995. denial of his plea of privilege and render judgment that the cause be transferred to Harris County. 1 Cases that cite this headnote The facts are undisputed. Koelling and Associates, Inc. filed [2] Pleading 0- Waiver of Objections to Plea or suit for temporary injunction, permanent injunction, and Answer or Want Thereof damages against Perkola. This court has previously decided the appeal from the temporary injunction. Perkola v. Koelling WESTLAW © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Perkola v. Koelling and Associates, lnc., 601 S.W.2d 110 (1980) & Associates, Inc., No. 20323 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas, February custody of the children pending final hearing on the main 7, 1980). On November 16, 1979, at approximately 8:30 a. m, suit will not waive a plea of privilege. Box v. Fleming, Perkola filed his plea of privilege t0 be sued in Harris County. 484 S.W.2d 617, 619 (Tex.Civ.App. Eastland 1972, no writ); Later that day he filed his original answer, special exceptions, Green v. Green, 424 S.W.2d 479, 481 (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler and a memorandum in support of his special exceptions, in 1968, no writ). Similarly, appearance in a habeas corpus At this time, citation had not been served on him. that order. proceeding prior to a suit for custody of a child, when the On that same day, however, he also appeared for a hearing on party had not been served, was not a waiver of a plea of the temporary injunction. At the subsequent plea of privilege privilege. Knollhoff V. Norris, 152 Tex. 231, 256 S.W.2d hearing, the court overruled the plea, and made no findings. 79 (1953). Also, an attack on a temporary injunction in a plea in abatement, and in the answer which is directed Perkola contends that no venue exception applies, that he did solely at the temporary injunction, is not a waiver. Gibson v. not waive his plea of privilege by filing special exceptions State, 288 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1956, writ and appearing at the temporary injunction hearing, and that dism'd); Powell v. Goldsmith, 164 S.W.2d 45 (Tex.Civ.App. venue was established as a matter of law in the county of Texarkana 1942, writ dism'd). The court in Powell, quoted his residence pursuant to Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 4656 dictum in McKinney v. Texas Life Insurance Co., 143 S.W.2d (Vernon 1940). Koelling & Associates does not assert on 789, 790 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1940, writ dism'd judgmt. appeal that a venue exception applies, but rather that Perkola cor), for the proposition that venue relates only to the merits waived his plea and that article 4656 is inapplicable. Because and not to interlocutory matters “that have no relation to an we hold that Perkola did not waive his plea of privilege, we issue, either of law or fact, going to the merits of the case.” need not address Perkola's contention under article 4656. [2] We hold that Perkola did not waive his plea by contesting Koelling asserts that Perkola waived his plea in two respects. the interlocutory temporary injunction. Perkola's appearance First, it argues that he waived it by voluntarily appearing at the at this hearing on an ancillary matter was not an appearance in temporary injunction hearing although he had not been served the main case. The main suit, for a permanent injunction and with citation. Second, it contends that the plea was waived damages, will be litigated subsequently, and this temporary when Perkola filed special exceptions and a brief in support injunction hearing did not resolve any issues of law or fact of his exceptions without making them subject to the plea. in the main case. Midland Building & Loan Association V. Sparks Chapel Colored M.E. Church in America, 35 S.W.2d Concerning the appearance at the temporary injunction 774, 775 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1931, no writ). Furthermore, hearing, Perkola argues that his appearance was not a the fact that Perkola had not been served with citation does waiver because he would have been bound by the temporary not change our view. His attorney evidently had agreed to injunction even if he had not appeared and that this was accept service of process, which will not waive a plea of not an appearance in the main suit but only in a interim privilege. See Winniford v. Holloman, 227 S.W. 1114, 1115 proceeding. Koelling counters that by voluntarily appearing (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1921, no writ). It is also argued that for the temporary injunction hearing when he had not been Perkola agreed to a continuance of the hearing. We can find cited, Perkola took action in the court which he was not nothing in the record which shows that Perkola requested or compelled to take, and thereby waived his plea. We cannot contested a continuance, or in any manner invoked the power agree. of the court on the matter. [l] Generally, a party will waive a plea of privilege if he [3] Perkola also filed special exceptions after filing his plea, invokes the power of the court in a manner which negatives and Koelling contends this was a waiver of the plea. Nothing a continuing intent to insist upon the plea. R. McDonald, 1 in the record reveals that Perkola presented these exceptions Texas Civil Practice s 4.40 (rev. 1965). For instance, a to the court for a ruling. In the absence of anything in the defendant can waive his plea by contesting a motion to sever record to show that these exceptions were presented to the the case. Smith v. Strauch, 96 S.W.2d 554, 555 (Tex.Civ.App. court for decision prior to the plea of privilege hearing, the San Antonio 1936, no writ). On the other hand, courts have filing of the special exceptions does not waive the plea. Pit held that appearing in other matters prior t0 the main suit will Construction Co. v. West Texas Equipment C0., 494 S.W.2d not waive the plea. For example, appearing at a hearing to 642, 644 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1973, writ dism'd); Geary, show cause why the plaintiff should not be *112 awarded WESTLAW © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Perkola v. Koelling and Associates, lnc., 601 S.W.2d 110 (1980) Hamilton, Brice & Lewis v. Coastal Transpofi Co., 399 S.W.2d 878, 880 (Tex.CiV.App. Dallas 1966, no writ). All Citations Reversed and judgment rendered that the cause be transferred 601 S,W_2d 110 to Harris County, Texas. End of Document © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. WESTLAW © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 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. Tonya Stephenson on behalf of Kartik Singapura Bar No. 24083863 tstephenson@bellnunnally.com Envelope ID: 54666203 Status as of 6/28/2021 8:36 AM CST Associated Case Party: PAUL GLEISER Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Douglas W. Brady 2841770 dougbrady@bradybradylaw.com 6/22/2021 5:29:15 PM SENT William F.Sharp Wi||iamSharp@BradyBradyLaw.com 6/22/2021 5:29:15 PM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Jeffrey S.Lowenstein jlowenstein@be||nunnally.com 6/22/2021 5:29:15 PM SENT Ruth Brearley rbrearley@bellnunnally.com 6/22/2021 5:29:15 PM SENT Tonya C.Stephenson tstephenson@bellnunnally.com 6/22/2021 5:29:15 PM SENT Rebecca Lubinski rlubinski@bellnunnally.com 6/22/2021 5:29:15 PM SENT Associated Case Party: HERSCHEL HAWTHORNE LLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Kartik Singapura ksingapura@bellnunnally.com 6/22/2021 5:29:15 PM SENT Danielle Canfield dcanfield@bellnunnally.com 6/22/2021 5:29:15 PM SENT