Irma Lemus and Manuel Lemus v. John Rene Aguilar, Johnny B. Wells, Laura Ashley Wells, and Johnny Montoya Garza ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
04-14-00609-CV
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
5/12/2015 1:42:29 PM
KEITH HOTTLE
CLERK
NO. 04-14-00609
_____________________________________________________________________________
FILED IN
4th COURT
IN THE TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS - FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL OF APPEALS
DISTRICT
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
IRMA LEMUS and MANUEL LEMUS, JR., 05/12/2015 1:42:29 PM
Appellants
V. KEITH E. HOTTLE
Clerk
JOHNNY MONTOYA GARZA, JOHN RENE AGUILAR,
LAURA ASHLEY WELLS and JOHNNY B. WELLS, Appellees
On Appeal from Cause No. 2012-CI-00251, 225th Judicial District Court of Bexar County
______________________________________________________________________________
APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION RE APPELLANT’S BRIEF
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:
COME NOW Appellees, JOHNNY MONTOYA GARZA, JOHN RENE AGUILAR,
LAURA ASHLEY WELLS and JOHNNY B. WELLS, and respectfully request that this
Honorable Court clarify whether they are required to respond to Appellants Irma Lemus and
Manuel Lemus, Jr.’s May 11, 2015 brief as a supplemental brief to the one filed on April 20, 2015
or a substituted brief. In support thereof Appellees would show as follows:
I. APPEALS COURT ORDER TO REDRAW BRIEF
1.1 On April 29th, 2015, this Honorable Court ordered Appellants to file a “redrawn
brief” by May 11th because the Appellants’ original brief failed to conform with briefing rules,
Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(d), (f) (no references to record); 38.1(h) (no summary of the argument);
38.1(i)(no citations to the record); and 94.(i)(1), (2(B)(exceeds word limit) and 9.4(i)(3)certificate
of compliance on words in document).
1.2 `` Per Rule 38.9 Tex. R. App. P. the court may require that a brief be supplemented,
amended or redrawn. However, the word “redrawn” is not defined at least as far as the
undersigned’s research has discovered.
1.3 Appellants May 11th brief fully and fairly addresses the dispositive issues on appeal.
However, inasmuch as Appellants April 20th brief raises statements of fact and issues of law not
included in the May 11th brief, Appellees seek clarification as to whether they are required to
respond and rebut the statements of fact and issues on appeal as stated in the original brief, but not
raised in the subsequent brief. These include Issues 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 and extensive volume and
page references to the record under the argument under Issue No. 5. While none of these are valid
complaints, and wholly unsupported by the record, whether referenced or not, they nevertheless
appear to require a response. Appellees would further submit that the Appellants have had the
benefit of several months of additional time to file a brief on appeal from the original January 8,
2015 appellate deadline.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellees respectfully request that this
Honorable Court clarify whether or not Appellees shall be required to respond to any issues raised
other than those brought forward in Appellants’ May 11th, 2015 brief and for such further relief to
which they may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Anita J. Anderson
ANITA J. ANDERSON
Texas Bar No. 01165955
LAW OFFICE OF ANITA J. ANDERSON
Conference: 303 West Sunset Suite 103
Correspondence: POB 830722
San Antonio, Texas 78283
Telephone (210) 533-8726
Telecopier (210) 633-0989
ajanderson1111@gmail.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A true and correct copy of the above and forgoing has been forwarded by e-service and
facsimile transmission to Ana Laura Hessbrook, attorney of record for Defendants Irma Lemus
and Manuel Lemus, Jr. at 4100 N.W. Loop 410, Suite 105, San Antonio, Texas 78229
hessbrook@sbcglobal.net, (210) 706 -9467 and Sarah Anne Lishman, 310 South St. Mary’s St.,
Suite 845, San Antonio, Texas 78205, sarahanne@jamiegrahamlaw.com (210)308-5669 this 12th
day of May, 2015.
/s/ Anita J. Anderson
ANITA J. ANDERSON