NO. 01-14-00215-CV

IN fiIE

COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT

OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

AT HOUSTON

LETIIA PILI,AI

Appellanf

vs.

JESUS VEGA AND DALIA VEGA

Appellees,

On Appeal from the 234th Civil District C-ourt

of Harris C-ountv. Texas-cause tr2011-68692

REQUEST BY APPELI"A}TT TO KEEP CASE PENDING

AT THIS TIME AS DISMISSAL COULD RESULT IN

APPELLEES ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT FTILL JUDGMENT

NEII ELEMENT IN TIIIS APPEAL I.

A. c. K. Pillai. is the father of Appellant ( and the

real gartg in lnterest, including the person whose ftmds are

referred to as Appel-Iant's futtds, but are actuallV the ftmds of

said G. K. Pi7Lai) .

B. c. K. PiIIai was shot in the stomach, a few days

ago, while he !,ras in his C.P.A. office in Denver Harbor, by it is

ACCEPTED

01-14-00215-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

1/26/2015 4:03:13 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 1/26/2015 4:03:13 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
understood a man about 18 to 20 years ol-d, apparently on and

seeking money for drugs. It is understood that the perpetrator of

the crlne stole something like $20.00 and then shot e. K. PillaL

and fled. G. K. Pil.lai was in the hospital as the bullet lt is

understood went through his pancreas. He is out now, but has not

been able to get in to talk with Appellantrs attorney, except

briefly on the phone, while he was in the hospital to just gLve the

fact he had been shot and bare details stated above.

C. Therefore, it is requested that the First Court of

Appeals NOT DISMISS THIS CASE ON MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 2OLS AS NOlv

SCHEDULED. There is more to this motion, set out bel-ow, but this

fact it is believed, needed to be stated first, to show that

dismissal- with more detail just is not possible at this time.

BRIEF BACKGROT'ND II,

A. This case was settled at MedLation on June LI, 2O!4.

After sorne discussions between counsel on both sides, Appelleers

attorney, on Jufy 7, 2OL4, had spent considerable time preparing

five documents needed to folfow through with the compl-etion of this

case. These documents prepared by Appellantrs attorney and finally

agreed to by Appellees' attorney on or about July 28, 20L4. Those

documents vrhich Appellees were to sign, and their attorney receive

a $24,000.00 settlement cashier's check to conclude the Mediation

Settfement Agreement, by exchanging the said check for the signed,

notarized documents to be given to Appellantrs attorney. The

Document r^rere absolutely necessary to conclude this matter, as they

were:
1. Notice of Settlenent at Mediation. WhLch was

to be jointly signed and sent to the 1st Court of Appeal-s

within one or two days.

2. Settlement Agreement ( this Ls the short title.

This docrnnent is to fiTe with the First Court of AppealsEouston). This was basically the full- version of the

mediation settlement memorandun signed at Mediatlon. It

is understood that Appel-l-ees' attorney agrees on this

document and it is not one that was in issue for changes.

Appellantts attorney has been tol-d it is okay.

3. Ouit CLain Deed. This docunent has been redone

several times and i.t is understood that the last version

is now okay with ApSrellees I attorney and Appellees have

signed or are signing this last version,

4. Release of Judqment Lien. This document has

been redone several times and it is understood that the

last version is now okay with Appellees I attorney and

Appellees have signed or are signing this last version.

5. Joint Aqreed Post-Judoment ltotion To Release

Supersedeas Bond Funds In Reoistrv Of The Court.

6. Joint Aoreed Order To Release Supersedeas Bond

Furtds In Registry of The Court.

B. Appellees apparently had some conflict in their

relationship. Upon Appellant I s attorney challenge made at

Medj-ation, that al-l necessary parties were not present, Appellees

5
attorney announced at Mediation, that Jesus vega had the authority

of his !'ri fe to settle the case. Appellant secured a cashier's

check for $24,000.00 (which is sti77 in AppTTant's attorneg's safe

awaiting deliverg of tbe signed, notarized documents ) and has been

there awaiting completion for months now. Apparentl"y tbe

represerrtation made by AppelJ-ees I attorney that once the documents

vrere delivered to him for his clients to sign, and the check ready

to be del-ivered, he would have the Appellees sign the documents and

the documents and check could then be exchanged.

C. Instead, Appellant has had to file with this Court

a Motion to Compel i then an updated Motion to Compel and for

Sanctionsi and then as Request for an Emergency Hearing.

D. Appellees I attorney has ceased responding to

anything whlch Appellantrs attorney sends to him and those

documents filed. Now this Court has given notice that the thing

which needs to be done, if for Appellant to file a rBreach of

Contractr action to enforce the nediation Agreement. The Court

also stated it would be dismissing this appeal .

PROBLEM WITH DISMISSAL III.

A. The problem that Appellantrs attorney sees in a

di.smissal" are these:

1, Appellant is stifl out the Supersedeas Bond

amount of $32,594.97 pfus accrued interest, which ls to

be paid to Appellantt

2- Appell"ant also has put out $24,00O.OO, the

settlement amount, which is being held by Appelleesl
attorney in his safe, to deliver ln return for the slgned

documentsi

3. Appellant has had to expend thousands of

doll-ars already, in attorneyrs fees and expenses in

trying to enforce the Mediation Settlement Agreement, and

there is not even any response no$r from Appellees t

attorney.

4. If this appeal is di.smissed, then this is what

could happen:

a. Appelleesr attorney, using the dismissal

of this appeal by the First Court of Appeals, couLd

attempt then to obtain the S32,594.97 plus accrued

interest, supersedeas bond, showing that the Appeal

is not longer pending and hence they are entj-t1ed

to the amount of the origi.nal j udgnent t and,/or

b. Even if Appellant files the suit as

suggested by this Court is the proper procedure,

before service could be obtained upon the Appellees

and thej.r attorney and law firm, to obtain a

possible inj unction against such action, a. Just

above could occur. Once those funds were given to

the Appellees, any action for breach of contract,

could be a hollow judgment, as the funds would

already have been spent, glven asray or gonei and/or

c. It may be that Appellant cannot even get

cooperation from Appellees I attorney to provide the
service address of each of the Appellees, and it

might take months and a large expense to try to

locate and get them served, and then a 1ot of

expense to get to a judgment for Appellant, which

may be just the same thing as an order to comply

with the Mediation Settlenent.

MINIMUM RELIEF SOUGHT rv.

A. Appellant therefore requests that this Court not

dismiss this case on January 26, 2OL5 as the present OTder states

will be done, unless this motlon is fil-ed to be considered by this

Courti and

B. this appeal be kept on the docket of this Court,

until- Appellant can file a suit in llarris County District Court,

gain service upon the Appellees, and an injunction from that

District Court upon the Appellees and the Harris County District

Clerk not to disburse the funds in the Registry of this Court,

wlthout an Agreement signed by Appellees or an Order of the

District Court Judge in the new case; and

C. If this Court could determine it has a 1egal basis

to act upon the motions for sanctions previously filed in this

court (it is believed nelther motion nor the reguest for an

emergencg hearing is contested), and order reasonable attorneyrs

fees and expenses, as requested, as an incentive to the Appellees

to try to resolve thls matter without the expense of another entire

]aw suit; and/or, in the alternative,
D. Because of such breach by Appellees and their

attorney, because of the fact that the Appellees' jointly requested

that they be able to go to nediation to settle this casei signed

the Mediation Settlement Agreement, thereby agreeing to the

settlement t but then ignored the settlement alternative provided by

tftis Court, settled the case, but then rirould not honor the

settlement made under the ausplces of this Courti and hence their

Answer to Appeal- shoul-d be dismissed and this Court reverse and

render in favor of the AppeJ.lant, by the default of the Appellees

in this Court.

E. It should be noted by Appellant and AppellantIs

attorney, that a sizeable amount of the Medlatton Settlement

Agreement amount, 1s offset by the considerable amount of tlme and

work and expense by Appellantrs attorney, in attempting to gain

conpletion of the mediation settlement agreement, attempt to

enforce it through motions and a request for emergency hearing in

this Court, and in trying to prevent this Appeal from being

dismissed, and possibly allowing Appellees to grab the origlnal

J udgment amount in the Registry of the trial court, by the

dismissal of the Appeal in this Court.

F- It is beli-eved that thj.s Court has the ability to

enforce actions it has taken and have been ignored by one party and

therefore can be sanctioned by the First Court of Appeal-s.

V|HEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant ( aJld her

father, the rea] partg in intetest and person who has paid the over

556,000.00 now being held bg the Registrg of the Harrj-s Countg
District CTerk and AppeTTant's attorneg, in the forfr of the

Supersedeas Bond and interest AND the cashier,s check in

AplreIlanX's attotneg's safe) requests that this Appeal be kept on

the active docket of this Court, until notLce is given that a suit

to enforce has been filed; the Appellees and their attorney ( and/or

law f itn ) served with citation; an injunction granted by the Judge

of the Court in the new case uporl Appellees and upon the Harris

County District Clerk from distrlbuting the funds in the Registry

without proper agreement of the parties and attorneys or order of

the Judge in the new casei and therefore, the ability the Appellees

and/or their attorney or faw firm, from being able to obtain the

funds in the Harris County District C1erk's Regj.stry, being secured

pending such agreement or Court Orderi and for such other and

further relief, at law or in equity, to which Appellant is justJ.y

entitled.

RespectfulIy

T. W. PROCTOR

submitted,

T. W. Proctor, J.D.---Attorney for

AppelLant Glendale Mediation Center

630 Uvalde Houston, TX 77Ot5-3766 (7L3) 453-8338 rBA #16350000

FAx (713) 453-3232

email : auraman(aswbell.net
CERTIFICATE OF SEFVICE

On January 23, 2OI5, I, T. W. proctor, J.D., attorney for Appellant, hereby certify that I have delivered a true and correct

copy of the above instrument( s ) to each attorney of record or pro

se party herein, at the address(es) shown below: by filing same through ProDoc with a copy designated to be sent to such attorney

or partyi or by placing same in a U.S. post-paid certified mail

wrapper, addressed as shown below, and deposited with the U. S. Postal Servicei or by sendl-ng by FAx:

DANIEL F. CASTANEDA, J.D., Buckley, White, Castaneda & Howell, L.L.P., 240J- Fountainview, Suite L0O0, Houston, Texas 77057 a 7L3 749-77OO FAx 7L3 789-7703 TBA #O398O54O Email:

dcastaneda@bwchlaw. com ( attotneg for Jesus and Dalia Vega)

T. W. Proctor, J.D.--Attorney for

Appellant