Santander Consumer USA, Inc. v. Mario A. Mata Centroplex Automobile Recovery, Inc. Blake Thornton Vandusen, John F. Thompson D/B/A Centroplex Automobile Recovery, Inc. And Redshift Investigation, Inc. ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
03-14-00782-CV
6882539
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
9/11/2015 10:50:29 AM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
No. 03-14-00782-CV
FILED IN
3rd COURT OF APPEALS
In The Court Of Appeals AUSTIN, TEXAS
For The Third Court Of Appeals 9/11/2015 10:50:29 AM
Austin, Texas JEFFREY D. KYLE
Clerk
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC.,
Appellant,
v.
MARIO A. MATA, CENTROPLEX AUTOMOBILE RECOVERY, INC.,
JOHN F. THOMPSON d/b/a CENTROPLEX AUTOMOBILE RECOVERY,
INC., REDSHIFT INVESTIGATION INC.,
and BLAKE THORNTON VANDUSEN,
Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE 353RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
TRIAL COURT
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-13-000677
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND SUPPLEMENT BRIEF
OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE MARIO A. MATA
E. JASON BILLICK, SBN: 24078230
WILLIAM B. GAMMON, SBN: 07611280
GAMMON LAW OFFICE, PLLC
1201 Spyglass Drive, Ste. 100
Austin, Texas 78746
Phone: (512) 472-8909
Fax: (888) 545-4279
firm@gammonlawoffice.com
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THIS COURT:
E. Jason Billick and William B. Gammon of the GAMMON LAW OFFICE,
attorneys of record for Appellee Mario A. Mata, file this Motion for Leave to
Amend and Supplement Brief of Plaintiff-Appellee Mario A. Mata pursuant to
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.7. Appellee Mario A. Mata respectfully asks
this Court leave to amend and supplement his brief on or before Tuesday,
September 15, 2015, at 5:00 PM. In support, Appellee states as follows:
RELEVANT FACTS
1. On February 17, 2015, Appellee Mario A. Mata filed his Brief of Plaintiff-
Appellee, Pro Se.
2. On March 9, 2015, Appellant Santander Consumer USA, Inc. filed its
Reply Brief of Appellant to Brief of Appellee, Mario A. Mata. To date,
there have been no other brief submissions.
3. On April 10, 2015, the Gammon Law Office, PLLC, filed its appearance in
this Court on behalf of Appellee Mario A. Mata.
4. On August 26, 2015, this Court set this matter for oral argument on
September 23, 2015 at 1:30 PM.
ARGUMENT
5. This Court has held that "[a] brief may be amended or supplemented
whenever justice requires, on whatever reasonable terms the court may
1
prescribe." Majeed v. Hussain, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 8477, *26 (Tex.
App. Austin Oct. 22, 2010) (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 38.7). Generally, "a
party must seek leave of court to file an amended or supplemental brief,
and the appellate court has some discretion in deciding whether to allow
the filing." Standard Fruit & Vegetable Co. v. Johnson, 985 S.W.2d 62, 65
(Tex. 1998).
6. Here, Appellee Mario A. Mata’s counsel did not file an appearance until
after Maria A. Mata filed his brief pro se. Counsel has conducted an in-
depth evaluation of the appeal in anticipation of the September 23, 2015,
oral argument. Counsel has determined Mario A. Mata’s brief must be
amended and supplemented so that it may accurately "acquaint the court
with the issues in [this] case and…present [an] argument that will enable
the court to decide the case.” TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9.
7. Specifically, counsel for Appellee Mario A. Mata would like to raise an
argument with regard to the issue of whether there is a valid agreement to
arbitrate. Here, Plaintiff-Appellee has brought suit against Appellant, in
relevant part, for breach-of-contract. The Court of Appeals of Texas for the
Eighth District has held:
Because arbitration is a creature of contract, we apply standard
contract principles to determine the enforceability of arbitration
agreements. See Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg., 388
U.S. 395, 404 n.12, 87 S. Ct. 1801, 1806 n.12, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1270
2
(1967); Ysleta Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Godinez, 998 S.W.2d 700, 702
(Tex. App.--El Paso 1999, no pet.). "A fundamental principle of
contract law is that when one party to a contract commits a material
breach of that contract, the other party is discharged or excused from
any obligation to perform." Hernandez v. Gulf Group Lloyds, 875
S.W.2d 691, 692, 37 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 731 (Tex. 1994). Thus, because
material breach is a ground for revoking a contract, it should be a
ground for revoking an arbitration agreement.
Tri-Star Petroleum Co. v. Tipperary Corp., 107 S.W.3d 607, 612-613
(Tex. App. El Paso 2003, pet. denied) (emphasis added).
8. Appellant has brought this appeal with unclean hands. It attempts to rely
upon an agreement it breached several years ago. Therefore, Appellee
Mario A. Mata should, at the very least, be afforded the opportunity to
amend and supplement his brief to adequately present this argument.
9. Appellant is correct that the question of whether an enforceable agreement
to arbitrate exists is a legal question that the appellate court reviews de
novo. Rachal v. Reitz, 403 S.W.3d 840, 843 (Tex. 2013). Therefore, there
are some legal arguments Appellee Mario A. Mata may raise for the first
time on this appeal.
10. Appellee Mario A. Mata respectfully asks this Court leave to amend and
supplement its brief. Counsel for Appellee Mario A. Mata believes a
supplemental and amended brief can be filed no later than Tuesday,
September 15, 2015, at 5:00 PM.
3
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ E. Jason Billick
E. JASON BILLICK, SBN: 24078230
WILLIAM B. GAMMON, SBN: 07611280
GAMMON LAW OFFICE, PLLC
1201 Spyglass Drive, Ste. 100
Austin, Texas 78746
Phone: (512) 472-8909
Fax: (888) 545-4279
firm@gammonlawoffice.com
Counsel for Appellee Mario A. Mata
4
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 10.1(a)(5), I hereby certify
that our office has conferred, or made a reasonable attempt to confer, with all
other parties which are listed below about the merits of this motion on the 10th
day of September, 2015.
David L. Treat, SBN: 20205300
LINDOW STEPHENS TREAT, LLP
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE RED SHIFT
Method of contact: Email and telephone
Results: Attorney for Appellee advised that they oppose this motion.
Karen C. Burgess, SBN: 00796276
RICHARDSON + BURGESS, LLP
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES CENTROPLEX AUTOMOBILE RECOVERY, INC. AND
JOHN F. THOMPSON
Method of contact: Email and telephone
Results: Attorney for Appellee advised that they oppose this motion.
John S. Kenefick, SBN: 24006294
MACDONALD DEVIN, P.C
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE BLAKE THORNTON VANDUSEN
Method of contact: Email and telephone
Results: Attorney for Appellee advised that they do not oppose this motion.
Vicki W. Hart, SBN: 24046037
DEVIN, NAYLOR & TURBYFILL, PLLC
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC.
Method of contact: Telephone
Results: Attorney for Appellant advised that they oppose this motion.
/s/ E. Jason Billick
E. Jason Billick
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been
served by Pro-Doc e-service or facsimile on this the 11th day of September 2015:
Christopher A. Lotz Karen C. Burgess
David L. Treat RICHARDSON + BURGESS, LLP
LINDOW STEPHENS TREAT, LLP 221 West 6th Street, Suite 900
The Vogue Building Austin, Texas 78701
600 Navarro Street, Sixth Floor Tel: (512) 482-8808
San Antonio, Texas 78205 Fax: (512) 499-8886
Tel: (210) 227-2200 kburgess@richardsonburgess.com
Fax: (210) 227-4602 Attorney for Appellees Centroplex
clotz@1stlaw.com Automobile Recovery, Inc. and
dlt@1stlaw.com John F. Thompson
Attorneys for Appellee Red Shift
Investigation, Inc.
John S. Kenefick Donald L. Turbyfill
John R. Sigety Deborah C. S. Riherd
MACDONALD DEVIN, P.C. Vicki W. Hart
3800 Renaissance Tower DEVIN, NAYLOR & TURBYFILL,
1201 Elm Street PLLC
Dallas, Texas 75270 4801 Woodway, Suite 420-West
Tel: (214) 744-3300 Houston, Texas 77056
Fax: (214) 747-0942 Tel: (713) 622-8338
jkeneifick@macdonalddevin.com Fax: (713) 586-7053
jsigety@macdonalddevin.com dturbyfil@dntlaw.com
Attorneys for Appellee driherd@dntlaw.com
Blake Thornton Vandusen vhart@dntlaw.com
Attorneys for Appellant Santander
Consumer USA, Inc.
/s/ E. Jason Billick
E. Jason Billick
6