Case Information
*0 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 09/21/2015 4:39:33 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 09/21/2015 4:39:33 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk *1 ACCEPTED 04-15-00219-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 9/21/2015 4:39:33 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK CAUSE NO. 04-15-00219 — CV CAUSE NO. 04-15-00218 — CV DAVID GOAD, Appellant V.
JAMIE OSBORNE, Appellee CONSOLIDATED WITH DAVID GOAD, Appellant V.
ERIC STREY Appellee Appealed from County Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial No. 2014-CV-0393 Trial Cour No. 20l4—CV-0392 Robin V. Dwyer, Judge Presiding APPELLEES’ OPPOSITION TO APPELLANT’S SECOND REQUEST FOR MORE TIME *2 TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
COMES NOW Appellees Jamie Osborne and Eric Strey and files this their
Opposition Appellant’s Second Request for More Time would respectfully
show unto this Court as follows: Relief Reg uested 1.
On September 14, 2015, Appellant, Goad filed his Second Request
for More Time with this Court. Mr. Goad’s Motion claims a medical condition he
has lived with for six years has left him physically unable to draft appellate briefs
required him in this Court, Texas Supreme Court Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Mr. Goad concludes his Request by asking this Court for an indefinite
extension Mr. Goad file his brief. Mr. Goad’s request comes just
four days prior September 18, 2015 deadline imposed him to
file his Appellate brief. Mr. Goad’s request should in all things be DENIED and appeal DISMISSED Want Prosecution.
II. Argument & Authorities
Mr. Goad’s Request is not accompanied by any competent evidence. The
documents attached to Mr. Goad’s Request are either irrelevant, the case of
Exhibit A or hearsay, exhibits B, C, and D, pursuant to the Texas Rules of
Evidence. Mr. attached an article not verified as business record and
Page
provides the Court with no relevant information as why Mr. Goad has failed to
comply with the order. He also attached three letters allegedly from his own
treating physicians, the latest of which is dated April 20, 2015, from Dr. Toledo.
None of the three letters say anything about Mr. Goad not being able to work
during the relevant period. In fact, since Exhibit B was reportedly drafted by
Dr. Horton August 16, 2010, Mr. Goad has prosecuted three lawsuits the
United States District Court Western District Texas, two of which he
appealed United States Appellate Court Fifih Circuitl. In addition he
has appealed to this Court no less than seven (7) times in that same spanz,
including the present consolidated appeal. He has also appealed sister courts, the
Third Court of Appeals3 Fourteenth of Appeals4 during that time
period. He has even appealed one his cases to the Texas Supreme Cou1t.5
[1] Bank Hancock Bankf/k/a Peoples First Community Bank [5] 15-0662 re David Goad [4] 14-13-00861-CV David Goad v. [2] [3] 03-12-00170-CV In v. Hancock Bankf/k/a Peoples First Community / County Guadalupe, 5.04-~14-00501In re David Goad; 6. 04-14-00637 In re David Goad; 7. 04-15-00218 Texas; 04-15-00219 David Goad v.]amie Osborne / David Goad v. Eric Strey. 3. 5:2014-cv-00813 Goad v. v. Goad v. Zuehl/lirport Camareno, et, al. [Appealed] David 04-11-00293-CV 2. Flying Community 0wnersAssociation; 04-11-00894 Goad C. David 04~14-00497-CV 4. Relator; Goad, David re In 3. v. Goad Goad, et. al. v. Guadalupe County, 5:2011-cv-01056 1. et; al. et. Community Flying ZuehlAirport v. Goad David 08-10-00216 1. 522013-cv-00063 2. [Appealed] al. Doe, 0wnersAssociation;
Page
Interestingly, Mr. Goad recently requested an extension of time to file his brief in
his Texas Supreme Court case. He cited this Court’s August 12, order and its
September 18, 2015 deadline as a basis the extension he requested from the Texas Supreme Court. A Copy of Mr. Goad’s Extension Request, file stamped
August 31, 2015 in Cause No. 15-0662 is attached hereto as Exhibit A for the
Court’s convenience.
If Mr. Goad were truly unable to complete more than ten pages of briefing in month’s time as he claims, his Request Additional time, should have been
presented to this Court immediately upon Court’s issuance of its August 12, Order, not thirty (30) days later.
Appellees are fully aware Court’s great discretion over its docket and
power to schedule matters before it. Appellees’ intention is voice their objection to
Appellant’s Request alert Court to Mr. Goad’s long Appellate history, even
during his alleged illness. Mr. Goad has had ample to prosecute this appeal drafi his Appellate brief. Yet he has chosen not to so, rather his apparent
intention is dictate to this when he will submit brief, while using this
Court’s orders delay other appeals he prosecuting. Mr. intends file
his do so when it is convenient for him, regardless the Rules Appellate
Procedure or Orders Court.
Page 4 of
If Court chooses allow Mr. Goad an additional extension, Appellees
respectfully request Court admonish Mr. retain counsel no
additional extensions will be given as result Mr. Goad’s personal inability to
file his Appellate Brief.
III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellees respectfully request Honorable Fourth Appeals DENY Appellant’s Request DISMISS appeal Want Prosecution.
Page *6 Respectfully Submitted, Chunn, Price & Harris 16500 San Pedro Ave., Suite 410 San Antonio, TX 78232 Telephone (210) 343.5000
Telecopier (210) 525.0960 /s/ Jeremy R. Sloan
Jeremy Sloan State Bar No. 24054995 Email: jsloangazgphattorneys.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This certify true correct copy foregoing document was
served on: Goad l 154 Rivertree Dr.
New Braunfels, TX 78130 /s/ Jeremy R. Sloan
Jeremy Sloan
Page
EXHIBIT A
BLAKE HAW‘ By ‘N sU‘(::E1héxAs 2015. to Petitioner counsel. 6. April on l4—l3~t)t)8(i1—(‘V. with tile denial. 14. July the days from 2015. 27. subsequent These or lags surgery. under defined behind NO. for time additional review. for petition heart disorder. stress posttraumatic ell \\ are disabilities until petitioner Normally. Act. Disability with Ameriez1n‘s at October extend time made been have requests prior No review. petition for injuries. stroke tile the provides Time to tile petition grant to authority Texas rule Said review. for Supreme Court to Au(531'lli'l5 BANK, F/K/A I’E()l’l,ES FIRST COMMUNITY HAN(.‘()Cl( BANK 1) v. *8 HLIZU 5. forty-five 6. Petitioner requests an additional from prior spinal For more reasons: 21. Petitioner has been disabled 7. /\Ll(IIIi()lI£Ii needed 4. Petitioner's motion for the time 60 days file the petition for review. extending "rehezu'ing en banc consideration" was denied July 14. 2015. 5. Petitioner's petition review is due the Supreme on August 28. 20l than years. disability stems following 53.7 (f) Extension I. se): respondent is Hancock Bank. with This motion Fourteenth Court oi‘/\ppea|s issued its Memorandum Opinion /’eI'.s'una (pro Procedures v. Texas Rules Appellate 3. The Hancock. in is brought under of 2. Petitioner is Goad. in I’/'0/aria COURT E DeP“‘V CISIK Respondent. Petitioner, TIME EXTEND TO FOR PETITION REVIEW FILE M1 MOTION TO I’ETl'I'IONER'S ' ' _ - § § § § § § § I A OF TEXAS THE IN SUPREME COURT ‘ - V
takes about twice the normal amount ol‘timc to prepare pleadings. however. the last few months have been very difticult and has further limited the petitioner's workload. b. Petitioner is working multiple briefs and one to the U.S. Supreme Court. One example is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A." Conclusion 8. Given petitioner's health issues and work backlog. it is impossible him to submit a
meaningful petition review within the normal limitations. Declaration 9. 1. David Goad. if requested do so. could and would competently testify under oath. based upon my personal knowledge. the matters stated herein: information provided the PE'l‘lTIONER'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR REVIEW true. I freely swear under penalty perjury under Laws ofthe United States of America my above statements are true correct best my knowledge. Request it). Petitioner requests Supreme grant additional days to lile petition for review.
Respectfully submitted. Goad, pro se *10 CERTIFICATE!) OF SERVICE I certify under penalty perjury I sent a copy PETITIONER'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE I’E'l‘lTI()N FOR REVIEW each ofthose listed below August
2 . 20l S. method ofdelivery is noted below each name. When sent by "U.S. Mail," document(s) were placed into an envelope postage prepaid deposited into box which used solely for the collection ofmail by US. postal service. Craig R. Denum l I757 Katy Freeway.. Ste l()l() Houston. Texas 77079-1732 U.S. Mail Goad
jfaurtb Glluurt at Qppeals 5am $§Intom'o, tlliexas 2014-CV-0392 No. and 2014-CV-0393
Trial Guadalupe County, Court, Texas the From County Honorable V. Robin Judge Dwyer, Presiding [1] STREY and Does l0, Eric through 04-15-00218-CV No. 04~15-00219-CV No. Jamie OSBORNE 12, 2015 August GOAD, David David GOAD, Appellees Appellant Appellant Appellee V. V.
ORDER brief of appellant Goad in these consolidated appeals was due July 20, 2015.
Neither the brief nor a motion for extension of time was filed. On July 23, 2015, we ordered to file, not later than August 3, 2015, his appel1ant’s brief and a written response reasonably explaining his failure to timely file the brief. On August 6, the court received Goad’s motion extension file brief a request for a copy of the record. We grant motion. We order the Clerk this court send a copy the appellate record appellant CD Rom. Appellant advised if he desires a supplemental clerk’s record, he must request supplement in writing from trial court clerk file copy the request court. Any such request will not be grounds extending due date for appellant’s brief. 2‘/:(¢:'4" *12 We order appellant's brief due September 18, (60 days after original due date).
No further extensions will be granted absent a motion showing extraordinary circumstances. If brief or motion not electronically filed or received this court by September 18, 2015, appeal will be dismissed want prosecution. mailbox rule will not apply. %/rwnmll. I
Luz Eleh/a D. Chapa, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand affixed the seal said
court 12th day of August, 2015. ‘\‘“||iI|UHI][, \ ”I/ F §‘\"s’é:$.._,O.o--¢~v_A:.,'fD<:'?{(‘,.‘ __. ~ xs ‘"57 €45. 59‘ o O . - . $0 Keith B. Hottle' V 9) % Clerk Court § * * gg '‘ Cl 2'. :.=- -— 1; ‘wk $e§ I ' """r7 ‘ ~‘I~‘«‘§ r= ’ "’«‘IInmu\\\‘\\“‘
David Goad August 25. 2015 Mr. Blake A. l-lawthorne. (flerk Supreme Court oI'Tcxas PO. Box 12248 Austin. Texas I
Re: Petition Review in v. Hancock Hello Mr. Hawthorne. Please lile new issue upon receipt. A declaration proceed In Fomm Pc/uperis also provided your consideration. If any question arise please contact me.
591? Goad