Preview
FILED
1/25/2021 2:07 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Martin Reyes DEPUTY
N0. Dc—18—16723 Martin Reyes
C.L. CASHION ENTERPRISES, LLC., § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
D/B/A RENEWAL BY ANDERSON 0F §
AUSTIN §
§
Plaintiff, §
v. § 191st JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
SHARON QUICK AND JR WESTEN §
§
Defendant § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LATE FILED EVIDENCE RESPONDING
TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
To The Honorable Judge of Said Court,
Comes Now Sharon Quick and JR Westen, hereinafter referred to as "Defendants", and
les this, Defendant's Motion for Late Filed Evidence Responding to Plaintiff C.L. Cashion
Enterprises LLC, d/b/a, Renewal by Anderson of Austin’s motion for traditional and no
evidence summary judgment and in support thereof would respectfully Show unto the Court as
follows:
Synopsis
Plaintiff’ s unsworn statement fails to contain one requirement of CPRC, Section 132.001,
which was Respondents date of birth. This was brought to Respondent’s attention on Monday,
January 25, 2021. The supplemental evidence, is the exact same unsworn statement, no
additional facts are contained in it, except Respondent has included her date of birth.
Argument
The party ling the late evidence must obtain a written order granting leave to le.
Benchmark Bank v. Crowder, 919 S.W.2d 657, 663 (Tex. 1996). Rule 166a(c), authorizes the
Defendant’s Motion for Late File - Summary Judgment Evidence - Page l
court to accept materials led after the hearing so long as those materials are led before
judgment. Beavers v. Goose Creek Consol. I.S.D., 884 S.W.2d 932, 935 (Tex. App—Waco
1994, writ denied) (citing Rule I66a(c)) (nding that a trial court can accept evidence “after the
hearing on the motion and before summary judgment is rendered”); Diaz v. Rankin, 777 S.W.2d
496, 500 (Tex. App—Corpus Christi 1989, no writ) (holding that the trial court has discretion to
allow late ling); Marek v. Tomoco Equip. Co., 738 S.W.2d 710, 713 (Tex. App—Houston [14th
Dist] 1987, no writ) (concluding that a trial court may consider afdavits led after the hearing
and before judgment when the court gives permission). If a summary judgment hearing is reset,
the twenty-one—day requirement does not apply to the resetting. Birdwell v. Texins Credit Union,
843 S.W.2d 246, 250 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992, no writ) (“The twenty-one-day requirement
from notice to hearing does not apply to a resetting of the hearing, provided the nonmovant
received notice twenty—one days before the original hearing.”)lf the court grants a continuance,
the minimum twenty-one-day period notice requirement for submission or hearing does not
begin again because the twenty-one-day period is measured from the original ling day. Lewis v.
Blake, 876 S.W.2d 314, 315—16 (Tex. 1994) (per curiam) (citing Rule 4) (discussing the
calculation of the twenty-one-day notice requirement)
There are no changes in the unsworn statement of Sharon Westen, save and except for the
addition of the birthdate which is required under CPRC Section 132.001. There has been no
addition or deletion of facts, and no changes in the unsworn statement in any form save and
except for the addition of the date of birth. This late led evidence will work no hardship on
Plaintiff, and require no additional brieng or response by Plaintiff.
In the alternative, Defendant would requires that this Court reset the pending motion to
Defendant’s Motion for Late File - Summary Judgment Evidence - Page 2
allow for the ling of this unsworn statement prior to the summary judgment hearing.
Wherefore premises considered, Defendants prays that the attached unsworn declaration
be allowed as evidence in the pending motion for summary judgment.
Respectfully submitted,
WARD LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
Llo d E. Ward
/s/
By: Lloyd E. Ward
Texas Bar No. 20845 l 00
Email: lloyd@wardlegalus.com
12801 North Central Expressway
North Central Plaza III, Suite 460
Dallas, TX 75243
Tel. (214) 736-1846
Fax. (214) 736-1833
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
Certicate of Service
This is to certify that this pleading was provided to opposing counsel, pursuant to TRCP
Rule 21a and Dallas County Local Rules for electronic ling on this 25m day of January, 2021.
Llo d E. Ward
/s/
By: Lloyd E. Ward
Defendant’s Motion for Late File - Summary Judgment Evidence - Page 3
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.
Lloyd Ward on behalf of Lloyd Ward
Bar No. 20845100
lward@lloydward.com
Envelope ID: 49999853
Status as of 1/25/2021 3:42 PM CST
Associated Case Party: C.L. CASHION ENTERPRISES, L.L.C
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Mynde Eisen mynde@eisenlawoffice.com 1/25/2021 2:07:18 PM SENT
Derek Loetzerich derek@eisenlawoffice.com 1/25/2021 2:07:18 PM SENT
Mynde SEisen wyndeeisen@sbcglobal.net 1/25/2021 2:07:18 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: SHARON QUICK
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Lloyd EWard Iward@lloydward.com 1/25/2021 2:07:18 PM SENT
Para Legal paralegal@wardlegalus.com 1/25/2021 2:07:18 PM SENT
Daniel Permenter dpermenter@wardlegalus.com 1/25/2021 2:07:18 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 1/25/2021 2:07 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Martin Reyes DEPUTY N0. Dc—18—16723 Martin Reyes C.L. CASHION ENTERPRISES, LLC., § IN THE DISTRICT COURT D/B/A RENEWAL BY ANDERSON 0F § AUSTIN § § Plaintiff, § v. § 191st JUDICIAL DISTRICT § SHARON QUICK AND JR WESTEN § § Defendant § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LATE FILED EVIDENCE RESPONDING TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT To The Honorable Judge of Said Court, Comes Now Sharon Quick and JR Westen, hereinafter referred to as "Defendants", and les this, Defendant's Motion for Late Filed Evidence Responding to Plaintiff C.L. Cashion Enterprises LLC, d/b/a, Renewal by Anderson of Austin’s motion for traditional and no evidence summary judgment and in support thereof would respectfully Show unto the Court as follows: Synopsis Plaintiff’ s unsworn statement fails to contain one requirement of CPRC, Section 132.001, which was Respondents date of birth. This was brought to Respondent’s attention on Monday, January 25, 2021. The supplemental evidence, is the exact same unsworn statement, no additional facts are contained in it, except Respondent has included her date of birth. Argument The party ling the late evidence must obtain a written order granting leave to le. Benchmark Bank v. Crowder, 919 S.W.2d 657, 663 (Tex. 1996). Rule 166a(c), authorizes the Defendant’s Motion for Late File - Summary Judgment Evidence - Page l court to accept materials led after the hearing so long as those materials are led before judgment. Beavers v. Goose Creek Consol. I.S.D., 884 S.W.2d 932, 935 (Tex. App—Waco 1994, writ denied) (citing Rule I66a(c)) (nding that a trial court can accept evidence “after the hearing on the motion and before summary judgment is rendered”); Diaz v. Rankin, 777 S.W.2d 496, 500 (Tex. App—Corpus Christi 1989, no writ) (holding that the trial court has discretion to allow late ling); Marek v. Tomoco Equip. Co., 738 S.W.2d 710, 713 (Tex. App—Houston [14th Dist] 1987, no writ) (concluding that a trial court may consider afdavits led after the hearing and before judgment when the court gives permission). If a summary judgment hearing is reset, the twenty-one—day requirement does not apply to the resetting. Birdwell v. Texins Credit Union, 843 S.W.2d 246, 250 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992, no writ) (“The twenty-one-day requirement from notice to hearing does not apply to a resetting of the hearing, provided the nonmovant received notice twenty—one days before the original hearing.”)lf the court grants a continuance, the minimum twenty-one-day period notice requirement for submission or hearing does not begin again because the twenty-one-day period is measured from the original ling day. Lewis v. Blake, 876 S.W.2d 314, 315—16 (Tex. 1994) (per curiam) (citing Rule 4) (discussing the calculation of the twenty-one-day notice requirement) There are no changes in the unsworn statement of Sharon Westen, save and except for the addition of the birthdate which is required under CPRC Section 132.001. There has been no addition or deletion of facts, and no changes in the unsworn statement in any form save and except for the addition of the date of birth. This late led evidence will work no hardship on Plaintiff, and require no additional brieng or response by Plaintiff. In the alternative, Defendant would requires that this Court reset the pending motion to Defendant’s Motion for Late File - Summary Judgment Evidence - Page 2 allow for the ling of this unsworn statement prior to the summary judgment hearing. Wherefore premises considered, Defendants prays that the attached unsworn declaration be allowed as evidence in the pending motion for summary judgment. Respectfully submitted, WARD LEGAL GROUP, PLLC Llo d E. Ward /s/ By: Lloyd E. Ward Texas Bar No. 20845 l 00 Email: lloyd@wardlegalus.com 12801 North Central Expressway North Central Plaza III, Suite 460 Dallas, TX 75243 Tel. (214) 736-1846 Fax. (214) 736-1833 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS Certicate of Service This is to certify that this pleading was provided to opposing counsel, pursuant to TRCP Rule 21a and Dallas County Local Rules for electronic ling on this 25m day of January, 2021. Llo d E. Ward /s/ By: Lloyd E. Ward Defendant’s Motion for Late File - Summary Judgment Evidence - Page 3 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. Lloyd Ward on behalf of Lloyd Ward Bar No. 20845100 lward@lloydward.com Envelope ID: 49999853 Status as of 1/25/2021 3:42 PM CST Associated Case Party: C.L. CASHION ENTERPRISES, L.L.C Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Mynde Eisen mynde@eisenlawoffice.com 1/25/2021 2:07:18 PM SENT Derek Loetzerich derek@eisenlawoffice.com 1/25/2021 2:07:18 PM SENT Mynde SEisen wyndeeisen@sbcglobal.net 1/25/2021 2:07:18 PM SENT Associated Case Party: SHARON QUICK Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Lloyd EWard Iward@lloydward.com 1/25/2021 2:07:18 PM SENT Para Legal paralegal@wardlegalus.com 1/25/2021 2:07:18 PM SENT Daniel Permenter dpermenter@wardlegalus.com 1/25/2021 2:07:18 PM SENT