Case Information

*0 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/13/2015 2:15:14 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk *1 ACCEPTED 14-15-00170-CV FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/13/2015 2:15:14 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK No.__________

HINDU ASHRAM INC., § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS §

Plaintiff,

§ §

vs. JUDICIAL DISTRICT

§ §

SANJAY MATHUR, SEEMA MATHUR, AND THE HEIRS OF RAMESH S. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

MATHUR

Defendant. § PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE APPEAL AND TO REMAND TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:

NOW COMES Plaintiff, Sanjay Mathur, Seema Mathur, and the heirs of Ramesh Mathur, Movant herein, pursuant to Tex. Rules of

Appellate Procedure § 10.1(a), and files this Motion To Vacate

Appeal and To Remand this action previously removed from the

District Court, Fort Bend County, Texas, and states as follows:

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. The court granted Plaintiff’s motions for traditional and no-evidence summary judgements on September 24, 2013. The

court denied Defendant’s traditional and no—evidence motions for

summary judgment that same day. Defendant filed a Notice of

Appeal on February 27, 2015. Hereinafter, referred as “Notice of

Appeal” Exhibit A. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims survived summary

judgement and Defendants’s counter-claims failed in whole.

Plaintiff would ask this court to vacate this action and remand

the case back to the trial court as summary judgment proceedings

were interlocutory.

II. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY A. Plaintiff further shows that Defendant had no plausible basis for claiming that this court has jurisdiction on any basis

that would take precedence summary judgments were as

interlocutory. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgement was an

interlocutory appeal not subject to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Re. Code §

51.014. Therefore, “unless an interlocutory appeal is

specifically authorized by statute (mentioned above), the

appellate court has no jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the final orders.” Qwest

(appellate) courts is limited to

Communications Corp. V. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, (Tex.

2000)

As such, the notice of appeal is inadequate due to the court granting the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. On March

25, 2015, Plaintiff requested to counsel methods of resolutions;

however, to date Plaintiff has received no response. Hereinafter

referred as “Certificate of Conference Letter” Exhibit B.

Therefore in light of above facts, Plaintiff respectfully moves

this court to order any appropriate sanctions including, but not

limited to, ordering Defendant to pay the amount of reasonable

expenses incurred by Plaintiff in preparing and presenting this

motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees. This motion is

presented to the court in accordance with rule TEX. RULE OF

APPELLATE PROC. 10(a) (5).

B. Plaintiff further respectfully moves this court to order Defendant to pay all costs, expenses and reasonable

attorney’s fees incurred by Plaintiff as a result of the removal

action as for filing and prosecution of the appeal in culmination

with ignoring reasonable request to remand equates to frivolous

litigation.

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff, Ramesh Saran Mathur, prays that the Court abstains from hearing this cause of

action and remands the same to the District Court, Fort Bend

County County, Texas, for resolution on the merits, for recovery

of all costs and disbursements, including attorney’s fees,

incurred by reason of the removal proceedings; and for such other

and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted, By: c4ilA Sanjay S. Mathur Attorney-in-Charge Texas Bar No. 00794245 EMail: sanjay@mathurlawoffices.com 2989 N. Stemmons Freeway Suite 1000

Dallas, Texas 75247 Tel. (214) 378—8880 Fax. (214) 378—8890 Attorney for Plaintiff Rarnesh Saran Mathur *4 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE This is to certify that on March 25, 2015, the undersigned attorney conferred with Marilyn Vilandos in good faith to resolve

the issues surrounding this matter without court intervention,

however those attempts failed because of lack of response.

Therefore, the matter is presented to the Court for

determination.

Sanjay S. Mathur *5 F1Ll COPY Justices Chief Justice WILLIAM J. BOYCE KEM THOMPSON FROST TRACY ClIIusToPIlEI MARTIIA HILL JAMISON Clerk ShARON MCCALLY CIIRISTOPIIER A. PRINE J. BRETT BusBY 3irnzrtØ nw1 utipab Ph hONE 7 3-274-2800 JOHN DONOvAN MARC W. BROWN 301 Fannin, Suite KEN WISE 1-louston, Texas 77002

Monday, March 02, 2015 Sanjay Mathur John Cameron Stevenson

Mathur Law Offices, P.C. Mathur Law Office PC Mathur Law Building 2989 N. Stemmons Freeway Suite 1000

2989 N. Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1000 Dallas, TX 75247 Dallas, TX 75247-6102

[*] DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL ^[*]

Marilyn Vilandos

3100 Weslayan, Suite 372

Houston, TX 77027

[*] DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL ^[*]

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 14-15-00170-CV

Trial Court Case Number: 12-DCV-201944

Style: Hindu Ashram, Inc.

V. Sanjay Saran Mathur, Seerna Mathur and The Heirs of Ramesh S. Mathur The district clerk has advised this court that a notice of appeal was filed in this case. Upon assignment of this case to the Court of Appeals, a $195.00 filing fee is now due by the filing party.

This court has a mediation program. Upon perfecting an appeal, the appellant must complete and file a dockcting statement which contains a mediation section. The appellee must also complete and filc

the Court’s mediation docketing statement. Both appellant and appellee must file their statements within

15 days of the date of this letter. Failure to comply will be deemed an affirmative response to mediation

on behalf of the non-filing party. Our court’s docketing statement and mediation docketing statement are

available on the court’s website at www.txcourts.gov/l4thCOA.

Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule 6, all attorneys are required to provide the Court with a valid e-mail address when submitting any document to the Court. Notices or othcr communications about this

case will be delivered via email in lieu of mailing paper documents. Paper copics of notices or other

communications about this case can be obtained by a party upon written request. Effective December 1,

2012, Rule 9 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require that all computer generated documents

filed with the Court must be in a typeface no smaller than 14-point and must include a certificate of

compliance stating the word count of the document being filed. Failure to comply will result in your

document being rejected.

CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE, CLERK EXHIBIT A

Deputy Clerk *6 M

A T H u R L A W D FF G E S

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OF A TT O R N E Y S AND C OUN S EL O R S March 25, 2015

Marilyn Vilandos

3100 Weslayan, Suite 372

Houston, Texas 75247—6102

Via Fax (713) 214—255—9992

Re: Hindu Ashram, Inc. v. Sanjay Saran Mathur, Seema Mathur and

The Heirs of Ramesh S. Mathur

Dear Ms. Vilandos:

I have t r i e d calling your office on several occasions of which the

following dates include: March 16 (called twice; l e f t voice message);

March 17 (secretary stated and informed me that Vilandos is on vacation

for the week and that I should expect a return ca ll ) ; March 19, and

March 23. Each time I have l e f t a voice message; however as previously

stated on March 17, I received instructions that there would be a return

ca ll .

However, to date, we have received no response. The purpose of my ca ll s

was to confer with you that the appellate court has no j u r i s d i c ti on on

the appeal. Reasons being that our claims against your c li e n t survived

summary judgment despite the fact that your c li e n t ’ s claims f a il e d . As

such, the judgment was interlocutory and not subject to appeal.

At t h i s point we will f il e to vacate the judgment. We can do t h i s by

agreement with an agreed order to vacate and remand or we can do this by

written motion. If you do not agree to vacate the appeal and remand for

a t r i a l on our claims in the next seven days, we will fiLe a Motion to

Vacate and Remand. Along with t h i s motion we will Request for Attorney’s

and Sanctions as we would have to conclude that your lack of

responsiveness to t h i s most obvious issue is frivolous, unmerited and

based to harass and cost my c li e n t money.

We look forward to your written response within the time a ll o tt e d in

t h i s l e tt e r .

Sincerely

Christy M. White

2959 N. STEMMONS FRwy, 1 DDD SUITE DALLAS, TEXAS MA-i-HUR LAW BUILDINE PHoNE: (21 4) 37$-BBBD FAX: (21 4) 376aB9D WWW.MATHURLAWOFFICES.COM