On August 19, 2014 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Mega Builders Inc,
and
Bell Enterprises Inc,
Bell Tech Enterprises Inc,
Trimcos Llc,
for CONTRACT
in the District Court of Harris County.
Preview
201447565
MEGA BUILDERS, INC. IN THE DISTRICT COURT
D/B/A Mega & Associates
Plaintiff
Vs.
Bell Tech Enterprises, Inc., OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
Trimcos LLC
Defendants 215 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF’S REJOINDER TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND
ENTRY OF AMENDED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER
TO THE HONORABLE ELAINE H. PALMER, JUDGE PRESIDING:
Plaintiff and CounterDefendant Mega Builders, Inc. (“Mega”) responds to
Defendants’ limited opposition to its motion for continuance.
1 Defendants’ opposition makes it clear that they do not oppose a
continuance, but the issue is to the date when this case might be tried. Despite its
protestations, this case has ceased to be a “simple” case by the claims brought by
Plaintiff that Plaintiff was over performed and that curative work
‘was necessary.
2. Plaintiff’s initial investigation reveals that subsequent contractors worked
on the site under the control of Defendants and appear to be responsible for any damage
now apparent to Plaintiff's prior work. CounterPlaintiff and Defendants have not
identified
who those contractors are, nor provided any documents related to the scope of
draw requests subsequent to Plaintiff's
last draw, or whether
those subsequent
obligation to restore prior work damaged. in the course of their work, a
customary construction contract provision.. A reasonable time to obtain information who
they are, and to join them as parties, or to identify them as potentially responsible parties
to Defendants’ counterclaim is required, Time is required to have these presently
unknown to Plaintiff parties participate in trial is necessary. Due process requires no less.
d giving them six months to be ready for this case is pushing the matter.
Plaintiff’s suggested trial date
is January 2016. This date is in keeping with
the rescheduled
work that Plaintiff's counsel has had to make in earlier filed cases to
accommodate
his injury. And the dateis in keeping
with theage of this case, the fact that
there are third parties, not yet identified by CounterPlaintiff, that damaged Plaintiffs’
prior work, work whose damage or deficiency is the subject of the Counterclaim.
Moreover, trial in the month of October as suggested by Defendants will
work a hardship on Plaintiff’s counsel as the preceding month contains multiple religious
holy days preclusive of trial preparation in this case along with the previously set trial
setting in case no. 201314193.
Accordingly Plaintiff requests the Court grant its motions, enter a new docket
contol order anticipating a January 2016 trial setting
Respectfully submitted
May 1, 2015
/ BarryA. Brown
Bary A. Brown
SBOT NO. 03093000
Suite 1100, The Arena Tower
7322 Southwest Freeway
Houston, Texas 77074.
Tel: 713 981 3880
Fex: 713 981 3881
mail: tebear05@msn.com
Attomey For: Mega Builders, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that prior to filing this motion that I conferred
by e mail exchange with
Chris Juravich, attomey for Defendants, and regrettably, while he was most courteous,
the parties could not agree on the motion.
/ BarryA. Brown
Bary A. Brown
CERTIFICATOF SERV
I hereby certify thatI complied with Rule 21 and 21a,T.R.Civ.P. by serving all counsel
viae filing, fax or email to jcjuravich@aol.com on the date of filing, May 1,2015.
/ BarryA. Brown
Bary A. Brown
Document Filed Date
May 01, 2015
Case Filing Date
August 19, 2014
Status
Case On Appeal - Civil
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
201447565 MEGA BUILDERS, INC. IN THE DISTRICT COURT D/B/A Mega & Associates Plaintiff Vs. Bell Tech Enterprises, Inc., OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Trimcos LLC Defendants 215 JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF’S REJOINDER TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND ENTRY OF AMENDED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER TO THE HONORABLE ELAINE H. PALMER, JUDGE PRESIDING: Plaintiff and CounterDefendant Mega Builders, Inc. (“Mega”) responds to Defendants’ limited opposition to its motion for continuance. 1 Defendants’ opposition makes it clear that they do not oppose a continuance, but the issue is to the date when this case might be tried. Despite its protestations, this case has ceased to be a “simple” case by the claims brought by Plaintiff that Plaintiff was over performed and that curative work ‘was necessary. 2. Plaintiff’s initial investigation reveals that subsequent contractors worked on the site under the control of Defendants and appear to be responsible for any damage now apparent to Plaintiff's prior work. CounterPlaintiff and Defendants have not identified who those contractors are, nor provided any documents related to the scope of draw requests subsequent to Plaintiff's last draw, or whether those subsequent obligation to restore prior work damaged. in the course of their work, a customary construction contract provision.. A reasonable time to obtain information who they are, and to join them as parties, or to identify them as potentially responsible parties to Defendants’ counterclaim is required, Time is required to have these presently unknown to Plaintiff parties participate in trial is necessary. Due process requires no less. d giving them six months to be ready for this case is pushing the matter. Plaintiff’s suggested trial date is January 2016. This date is in keeping with the rescheduled work that Plaintiff's counsel has had to make in earlier filed cases to accommodate his injury. And the dateis in keeping with theage of this case, the fact that there are third parties, not yet identified by CounterPlaintiff, that damaged Plaintiffs’ prior work, work whose damage or deficiency is the subject of the Counterclaim. Moreover, trial in the month of October as suggested by Defendants will work a hardship on Plaintiff’s counsel as the preceding month contains multiple religious holy days preclusive of trial preparation in this case along with the previously set trial setting in case no. 201314193. Accordingly Plaintiff requests the Court grant its motions, enter a new docket contol order anticipating a January 2016 trial setting Respectfully submitted May 1, 2015 / BarryA. Brown Bary A. Brown SBOT NO. 03093000 Suite 1100, The Arena Tower 7322 Southwest Freeway Houston, Texas 77074. Tel: 713 981 3880 Fex: 713 981 3881 mail: tebear05@msn.com Attomey For: Mega Builders, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I hereby certify that prior to filing this motion that I conferred by e mail exchange with Chris Juravich, attomey for Defendants, and regrettably, while he was most courteous, the parties could not agree on the motion. / BarryA. Brown Bary A. Brown CERTIFICATOF SERV I hereby certify thatI complied with Rule 21 and 21a,T.R.Civ.P. by serving all counsel viae filing, fax or email to jcjuravich@aol.com on the date of filing, May 1,2015. / BarryA. Brown Bary A. Brown