Texas Education Agency and Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education, in His Official Capacity v. American Youthworks, Inc., D/B/A American Youthworks Charter School Honors Academy, Inc., D/B/A Honors Academy And Azleway Inc., D/B/A Azleway Charter School
03-14-00360-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 19, 2015Background
- Appellee American YouthWorks (AYW) filed an opposed motion to strike Appellants’ post-submission letter brief in an appeal from Travis County (Cause No. D-1-GN-14-000672).
- AYW contends the letter brief raises new legal arguments—principally an application of Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Co.—not presented in Appellants’ opening brief and raised for the first time after oral argument.
- AYW argues the letter brief functions as an unauthorized supplemental brief under Tex. R. App. P. 38.7 and was not timely; Appellants had multiple opportunities to address Robinson but did not do so before submission.
- AYW emphasizes prejudice: Appellants cite Union Carbide (a post-brief Texas Supreme Court decision) and other authorities AYW had no chance to respond to in briefing or oral argument.
- As alternative relief, AYW seeks leave to file a response to Appellants’ post-submission letter brief if the court accepts it for consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (AYW) | Defendant's Argument (Appellants) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-submission letter brief should be struck as untimely/new argument | Argues letter brief raises new Robinson-based legal theory and new cases; such additions were waived and should be stricken | Implicitly seeks to present Robinson analysis and new authorities in post-submission filing | Motion to strike pending; AYW requests striking and/or leave to respond |
| Whether the filing is a permitted supplement under Tex. R. App. P. 38.7 | Claims supplement not justified by justice; Appellants had chance to present arguments earlier | Seeks court’s leave to supplement post-submission | Whether justice requires consideration is for the court; AYW urges denial |
| Whether AYW is prejudiced by consideration without opportunity to respond | Asserts prejudice because Appellants cite Union Carbide and interpret Robinson in ways AYW had no chance to address | Argues late filing clarifies law and responds to oral argument | AYW requests leave to respond if court considers the brief |
| Whether arguments relying on Robinson and Union Carbide were waived by late presentation | AYW: late presentation constitutes waiver under controlling authority | Appellants: (by filing) present new legal analysis after oral argument | Determination pending; AYW urges waiver/strike |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 335 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. 2010) (establishes current tripartite framework for unconstitutional retroactivity and rejects vested-rights and broad police-power exceptions)
- Union Carbide Corp. v. Synatzske, 438 S.W.3d 39 (Tex. 2014) (addressed retroactivity issues in 2014 decision relied on by Appellants post-submission)
- Tex. Med. Ass’n v. Tex. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, 137 S.W.3d 342 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, no pet.) (post-submission or untimely arguments are waived)
- Romero v. State, 927 S.W.2d 632 (Tex. 1996) (new issues raised for the first time in post-submission briefing are not considered)
- City of Houston v. Precast Structures, Inc., 60 S.W.3d 331 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) (argument raised first in post-submission brief is waived)
- Black v. Shor, 443 S.W.3d 170 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2013, no pet.) (treating post-submission filing as a supplemental brief requiring leave)