On November 30, 2022 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Johnson Griggs, Nelda Joyce,
and
Johnson, Ray,
for FRAUDULENT LIENS
in the District Court of Dallas County.
Preview
FILED
2/28/2024 12:41 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Miranda Lynch DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-22-16386
NELDA JOYCE JOHNSON GRIGGS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
vs. 134th DISTRICT COURT
RAY JOHNSON,
Defendant/Counter Plaintiff DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial
COMES NOW, Ray Johnson, Defendant/ Counter Plaintiff in the above referenced case,
and files his response to Plaintiff’s First Amended Motion for New Trial and will show this
Court as follows:
1. This court granted a summary judgment in favor of Defendant/ Counter Plaintiff
Ray Johnson against Defendant Nelda Joyce Johnson Griggs on December 18, 2023. Griggs
timely filed a motion for new trial. Mr. Johnson responds to her motion.
2. Griggs alleges two grounds in her motion (see motion, p. 4). The first ground merely
alleges there was a fact issue whether the Defendant held the property in question as a true
owner. Her motion presents no additional facts or points to any evidence that creates a
genuine issue of material fact. She merely seeks a new bite of the apple.
3. Regarding her second-round of newly discovered evidence, her motion is unverified
or sworn to. The items Griggs attaches to her motion appeared to be public records that
Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial Page 1 of 3
existed and were available to anyone exercising the diligence to look for them. These items
anyway would be cumulative to other summary judgment evidence, if any, that she
presented in her response to Mr. Johnson’s motion. Furthermore, Griggs does not explain,
or even allege, that the items purporting to be newly discovered would produce a different
result.
4. Whether a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence will be
granted or refused is generally a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge,
and the trial judge’s action will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.
Rivera v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. 262 S.W.3d 834, 844 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2008, no
pet.) Citing Jackson v. Van Winkle, 660 S.W.2d 807, 809 (Tex. 1983). On review, every
reasonable presumption will be made in favor of orders of the trial judge refusing new
trials. Jackson v. Van Winkle, 660 S.W.2d at 809-10.
5. The following elements to obtain a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence:
• admissible relevant evidence introduced on the hearing for new trial
demonstrating the existence of newly discovered evidence relied upon;
• no knowledge of such evidence until after the conclusion of the trial and that
such evidence could not have been discovered prior to the trial with the exercise
of due diligence;
• such evidence was not cumulative or to be used for impeachment; and,
• such evidence would probably produce a different result if a new trial was
granted.
See generally New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Jordan, 359 S.W.2d 864, 866 – 867 (Tex. 1962).
Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial Page 2 of 3
Prayer
The Defendant / Counter Plaintiff prays the court to OVERRULE Plaintiff’s motion
for new trial.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Robert J. Reagan
Robert J. Reagan
State Bar No. 16630980
ROBERT J. REAGAN, P.C.
REAGAN McLAIN & HATCH, LLP
4054 McKinney Ave., Suite 310
Dallas, Texas 75204
214.691.6622
214.691.2984 (FAX)
Bob@reaganmclain.com (Email)
Attorneys for Defendant / Counter Plaintiff Ray Johnson
Certificate of Service
I certify that the foregoing document was served upon all parties to this action by
delivering to the party or counsel for the party in accordance with Rule 21a, Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure electronically, via the court's electronic filing system on February 28,
2024.
/s/ Robert J. Reagan
Robert J. Reagan
Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial Page 3 of 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.
Myra Hogue on behalf of Robert Reagan
Bar No. 16630980
myra@reaganmclain.com
Envelope ID: 84999833
Filing Code Description: Response
Filing Description: TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Status as of 2/28/2024 3:21 PM CST
Associated Case Party: NELDAJOYCEJOHNSON GRIGGS
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Nelda Griggs neldajgriggs@gmail.com 2/28/2024 12:41:48 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: RAY JOHNSON
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Robert Reagan bob@reaganmclain.com 2/28/2024 12:41:48 PM SENT
Ray Johnson williej1939@gmail.com 2/28/2024 12:41:48 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Francine Ly fly@dallascourts.org 2/28/2024 12:41:48 PM SENT
Jason Ciarochi jason@ciarochilaw.com 2/28/2024 12:41:48 PM SENT
Jason Ciarochi Jason@ciarochilaw.com 2/28/2024 12:41:48 PM SENT
Document Filed Date
February 28, 2024
Case Filing Date
November 30, 2022
Category
FRAUDULENT LIENS
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
FILED 2/28/2024 12:41 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Miranda Lynch DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-22-16386 NELDA JOYCE JOHNSON GRIGGS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, vs. 134th DISTRICT COURT RAY JOHNSON, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial COMES NOW, Ray Johnson, Defendant/ Counter Plaintiff in the above referenced case, and files his response to Plaintiff’s First Amended Motion for New Trial and will show this Court as follows: 1. This court granted a summary judgment in favor of Defendant/ Counter Plaintiff Ray Johnson against Defendant Nelda Joyce Johnson Griggs on December 18, 2023. Griggs timely filed a motion for new trial. Mr. Johnson responds to her motion. 2. Griggs alleges two grounds in her motion (see motion, p. 4). The first ground merely alleges there was a fact issue whether the Defendant held the property in question as a true owner. Her motion presents no additional facts or points to any evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact. She merely seeks a new bite of the apple. 3. Regarding her second-round of newly discovered evidence, her motion is unverified or sworn to. The items Griggs attaches to her motion appeared to be public records that Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial Page 1 of 3 existed and were available to anyone exercising the diligence to look for them. These items anyway would be cumulative to other summary judgment evidence, if any, that she presented in her response to Mr. Johnson’s motion. Furthermore, Griggs does not explain, or even allege, that the items purporting to be newly discovered would produce a different result. 4. Whether a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence will be granted or refused is generally a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and the trial judge’s action will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Rivera v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. 262 S.W.3d 834, 844 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2008, no pet.) Citing Jackson v. Van Winkle, 660 S.W.2d 807, 809 (Tex. 1983). On review, every reasonable presumption will be made in favor of orders of the trial judge refusing new trials. Jackson v. Van Winkle, 660 S.W.2d at 809-10. 5. The following elements to obtain a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence: • admissible relevant evidence introduced on the hearing for new trial demonstrating the existence of newly discovered evidence relied upon; • no knowledge of such evidence until after the conclusion of the trial and that such evidence could not have been discovered prior to the trial with the exercise of due diligence; • such evidence was not cumulative or to be used for impeachment; and, • such evidence would probably produce a different result if a new trial was granted. See generally New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Jordan, 359 S.W.2d 864, 866 – 867 (Tex. 1962). Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial Page 2 of 3 Prayer The Defendant / Counter Plaintiff prays the court to OVERRULE Plaintiff’s motion for new trial. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Robert J. Reagan Robert J. Reagan State Bar No. 16630980 ROBERT J. REAGAN, P.C. REAGAN McLAIN & HATCH, LLP 4054 McKinney Ave., Suite 310 Dallas, Texas 75204 214.691.6622 214.691.2984 (FAX) Bob@reaganmclain.com (Email) Attorneys for Defendant / Counter Plaintiff Ray Johnson Certificate of Service I certify that the foregoing document was served upon all parties to this action by delivering to the party or counsel for the party in accordance with Rule 21a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure electronically, via the court's electronic filing system on February 28, 2024. /s/ Robert J. Reagan Robert J. Reagan Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial Page 3 of 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. Myra Hogue on behalf of Robert Reagan Bar No. 16630980 myra@reaganmclain.com Envelope ID: 84999833 Filing Code Description: Response Filing Description: TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL Status as of 2/28/2024 3:21 PM CST Associated Case Party: NELDAJOYCEJOHNSON GRIGGS Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Nelda Griggs neldajgriggs@gmail.com 2/28/2024 12:41:48 PM SENT Associated Case Party: RAY JOHNSON Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Robert Reagan bob@reaganmclain.com 2/28/2024 12:41:48 PM SENT Ray Johnson williej1939@gmail.com 2/28/2024 12:41:48 PM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Francine Ly fly@dallascourts.org 2/28/2024 12:41:48 PM SENT Jason Ciarochi jason@ciarochilaw.com 2/28/2024 12:41:48 PM SENT Jason Ciarochi Jason@ciarochilaw.com 2/28/2024 12:41:48 PM SENT