Case Information
*0 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 7/27/2015 10:07:03 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk THIRD COURT OF APPEALS 7/27/2015 10:07:03 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE AUSTIN, TEXAS 03-14-00518-CV *1 ACCEPTED [6228065] CLERK Nos. 03-14-00515-CV & 03-14-00518-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
SALVA TORE MARGARACI AND ESTATE PROTECTION PLANNING
CORPORATION, Appellants
v.
EDUARDO S. ESPINOSA, IN HIS CAP A CITY AS RECEIVER OF
RETIREMENT VALUE, LLC, Appellee
And
JAMES POE AND SENIOR RETIREMENT PLANNERS, LLC,
Appellants
v.
EDUARDO S. ESPINOSA, IN HIS CAP A CITY AS RECEIVER OF
RETIREMENT VALUE, LLC, Appellee
Appeal from the 200th District Court
Travis County, Texas
Honorable Judge Gisela Triana
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE APPEALS
Respectfully submitted, ALDRICH PLLC State Bar No. 24036969 1130 Fort Worth Club Tower 777 Taylor Street Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Telephone: 817-336-5601 Facsimile: 817-336-5297 slindsey@aldrichpllc.com ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS JAMES POE AND SENIOR RETIREMENT PLANNERS, LLC *3 RESPONSE TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE APPEALS
James Poe and Senior Retirement Planners, LLC, the appellants in Cause
No. 03-14-00518-CV, file their Response to Appellee Espinosa's Motion to
Consolidate Appeals as follows:
Contrary to Espinosa's claim that "the cases were tried together," there was
no trial involving Appellants Poe and SRP. Also incorrect is Espinosa's claim that
the "issues are exactly the same" in the Magaraci appeal and the Poe appeal. Only
one of Poe's three appellate issues is similar to the issue presented by Magaraci.
The majority of Poe and SRP's appeal bears no similarity to Magaraci's appeal,
and a cursory review of Poe's and Magaraci's appellate briefs confirms the
dissimilarity in these appeals. As pointed out by Magaraci, the Poe appeal "raises
two additional fact-bound issues" that are not involved in Magaraci's appeal.
Margaraci's Appellants' Brief, at 7. The legal and factual issues are therefore not
"exactly the same" as alleged by Espinosa, and consolidation does not simplify the
issues for this Court. It is not enough to simply allege that the appeals should be
consolidated since they arise from the same litigation.
The Court has many options short of consolidation that would avoid
duplicate work or inconsistent results.
- 3 -
Appellants James Poe and Senior Retirement Planners, LLC pray that the
Court deny Appellee's motion to consolidate. Appellants further request all other
relief to which they may be entitled.
Respectfully submitted, ALDRICH PLLC State Bar No. 24036969 slindsey@aldrichpllc.com 1130 Fort Worth Club Tower 777 Taylor Street Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Telephone: 817-336-5601 Telecopier: 817-336-5297 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS JAMES POE AND SENIOR RETIREMENT PLANNERS, LLC *5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on this the 27 [1] h day of July, 2015, the foregoing motion
was filed electronically with the Clerk for the Third Court of Appeals. A copy was
served by electronic mail upon the following:
John W. Thomas
114 W. 7th Street, Suite 1100
Austin, Texas 78701-3015
jthomas@gbkh.com
Timothy A. Hootman
2402 Pease Street
Houston, Texas 77003
Thootman2000@yahoo.com