arrow left
arrow right
  • MICROCHECK SYSTEMS INC (TEXAS CORPORATION) vs. ZIGROSSI & MURPHY L L C (TEXAS CORPORATION) (IND A INJUNCTION document preview
  • MICROCHECK SYSTEMS INC (TEXAS CORPORATION) vs. ZIGROSSI & MURPHY L L C (TEXAS CORPORATION) (IND A INJUNCTION document preview
  • MICROCHECK SYSTEMS INC (TEXAS CORPORATION) vs. ZIGROSSI & MURPHY L L C (TEXAS CORPORATION) (IND A INJUNCTION document preview
  • MICROCHECK SYSTEMS INC (TEXAS CORPORATION) vs. ZIGROSSI & MURPHY L L C (TEXAS CORPORATION) (IND A INJUNCTION document preview
						
                                

Preview

CONFIRMED FILE DATE: 2/2/2010 Pd NO. 2004-59790 MICROCHECK SYSTEMS, INC. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND MICROCHECK SOLUTIONS, INC, Plaintiffs, v. 125TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ZIGROSSI & MURPHY, LLC, IND. AND D/B/A EDUCATED SOLUTIONS, CHRIS ZIGROSSI, SCOTT MURPHY, MIKE SMITH, Fiz INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A CMS ‘Bia decison TECHNOLOGY AKA CMS F ‘ork TECHNOLOGIES, MICHOICE EB ~ 2 201 Time Har oy > OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, INC., JIM HAYDEN, ALEX CAMPBELL AND JASON JABLECKI Defendants. AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REINSTATE AFTER DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE BEFORE ME. the undersigned authority. personally appeared Scarlett Culpepper May. who being duly sworn, deposed as follows: "My name is Scarlett Culpepper May. | am at least 18 years of age and of sound mind. lam personally acquainted with the facts alleged herein. "Twas counsel for Plaintifls, MicroCheck Systems, Inc., MicroCheck Solutions, Inc., and Cross Defendant, John Manning during most of 2009. I personally attended every hearing and motion that was scheduled during my time of representation during 2009 until the docket call scheduled for January 4, 2010. In early December, 2009 it was decided between me and my clients that they would substitute counsel as they desired to file a Mandamus action concerning a ruling on a Motion to Dismiss some of Plaintiffs’ causes of actions, which they telt were state causes of actions, and J did not want to participate in that appellate matter. | was informed that attorney Patrick G. Hubbard would be the new counsel, and I agreed to allow him to substitute counsel with my clients’ approval. A Motion and Order for Substitution for Counsel was sent to me before theChristmas holidays. [had approved the motion with my signature, but the original of the document did not get sent to Patrick Hubbard's office immediately. | have determined that the Motion and Order for Substitution was mailed to my client, instead, for their signature and approval first, and then was delivered to Patrick G. Hubbard's office. | assumed that the filing of the motion would be expedited and handled without any more effort on my part because of the upcoming docket call and trial date. [did not learn until January 5, 2010 that the Motion for Substitution had not been filed. My thinking was that once [ signed the Motion and Order for Substitution that was off the hook on the representation of Plaintiffs and | erroneously assumed that someone from Mr. I lubbard’s office would appear at the docket call and proceed on with trial matters. or that the Mandamus would be filed in the Court of Appeals and the trial would be delayed. My communications were with my clients and not with Mr. Hubbard. My failure to appear at the docket call was not intentional and was not a result of conscious indifference, but as a result of wrongly believing that new counsel would take over all representation immediately after I signed off on the Motion for Substitution of Counsel. I would never have intentionally failed to appear at any court hearing or docket call while Twas still counsel of record. On January 5, 2010 I received correspondence trom my Microcheck clients inquiring as to the status of the docket call. It was at that time that I spoke to the trial coordinator that J learned that I was still Plaintitls’ counsel, and that no one from cither side had appeared at docket call. There have been a number of docket calls on this case since it first began in 2004, and on each occasion, it appears that counsel for Plaintiffs always attended. My failure to attend docket call was a mistake on my part, and not intentional, and certainly not the result of any conscious indifference. | am asking this Honorable Court to please reinstate the C& deck C Novy Scarlett Culpepper May, Affiant c we ‘ \ ClO SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on Seas A by Scarlett Culpepper May, known to me to be the attorney who personally executed tHis affidavit. who “f Crud cr2/ Notanp Public, Fac of Texas