Motion to Stay - Filed - Supreme Court of Texas

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Ms. de Leon was the sales agent. Based on state and county restrictions, the property cannot be used for the purpose for which Lopez purchased it. This was discovered by Lopez after the sales transaction was complete. Lopez sued Ascension Martinez, Jr., Individually and d/b/a RBR Real Estate, Rose Mary de Leon, Abelino Garza, Jr., and Edwards Abstract & Title, Ltd. based on various theories including violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, common law fraud, fraud in a real estate transaction, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, negligent hiring and supervision, breach of contract, and exemplary damages. The deposition of Ascension Martinez, Jr. was taken on June 25, 2010 in San Antonio, Texas. During the deposition, counsel for Plaintiff asked questions regarding Relator’s assets and wealth. Counsel for Relator instructed him not to answer the questions. The deposition was stopped and counsel for the parties spoke to Respondent via telephone. Respondent requested the parties to certify the questions. Counsel for Relator agreed to submit Relator’s answers to the certified questions to the Court under seal. Relator filed his Responses to Questions Certified During the Deposition of Ascension Martinez, Jr. on July 9, 2010. On September 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel Witness to Answer Deposition Questions. A hearing on the Motion was held on October 4, 2010. No testimony was received at the hearing. On October 5, 2010, Judge Gonzalez signed an Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and ordered Relator to pay costs and attorney fees to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,000.00. Respondent further ordered that Relator respond completely to the questions certified during the deposition no later that October 20, 2010. A true and correct copy of the 2
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to Deposition Questions is attached as Exhibit “A.” On October 19, 2010, Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Thirteenth Court of Appeals seeking mandamus relief from Respondent’s Order of October 5, 2010. The petition for writ of mandamus was denied by the Thirteenth Court of Appeals on December 22, 2010. On January 5, 2011, Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court seeking mandamus relief from Respondent’s Order of October 5, 2010. In his petition, Relator asserts that Respondent violated his discretion in entering said Order. Relator requests that a writ of mandamus be issued ordering Respondent to set aside the October 5, 2010 Order. II. Relator Requests a Stay of the Trial Court’s Order While the Mandamus is Pending Relator requests that this Court stay the October 5, 2010 Order of the trial court pending the resolution of the mandamus in this matter. The Rules of Appellate Procedure expressly permit this Court to stay the underlying proceedings pending resolution of the mandamus. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10. In particular, Rule 52.10 provides an opportunity for the appellate court to address the dispute raised by the petition by maintaining the status quo pending resolution of the dispute. Id.; In re Keller, 999 S.W.2d 51, 52 (Tex. App.— Amarillo 1999, orig. proceeding). This Court has the discretion to enter temporary orders necessary to preserve the parties’ rights until disposition of the petition. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10. Staying the trial 3
Page 1: NO. _______________ IN THE SUPREME
Page 5 and 6: CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Counsel f

Motion to Stay - Filed - Supreme Court of Texas

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?