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