NO. 03-14-00782-CV

IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC.

Appellant,

v. MARIO A. MATA, CENTROPLEX AUTOMOBILE RECOVERY, INC., JOHN F. THOMPSON d/b/a CENTROPLEX AUTOMOBILE RECOVERY, INC. REDSHIFT INVESTIGATION, INC., and BLAKE THORNTON VANDUSEN, Appellees.

Appealed from the 353rd Judicial District Court Travis County, Texas

REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT

DONALD L. TURBYFILL State Bar of Texas # 20296380 dturbyfill@dntlaw.com [ E- MAIL ] DEBORAH C. S. RIHERD driherd@dntlaw.com [ E- MAIL ] State Bar of Texas # 24038904 VICKI W. HART State Bar of Texas # 24046037 vhart@dntlaw.com [ E- MAIL ] Devlin, Naylor & Turbyfill, P.L.L.C. 4801 Woodway, Suite 420-West Houston, Texas 77056-1805 (713) 622-8338 [ P HONE ] (713) 586-7053 [ F ACSIMILE ] ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC. ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED ACCEPTED 03-14-00782-CV 4070020 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/9/2015 11:21:23 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKTABLE OF CONTENT S

INDEX OF AUT HORITIES.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

ST A T E ME

N T OF APPELLANT’ S REPLY POINTS TO APPELLEES’ RE SP O N SE

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Rep ly to Is su e I: In a de bt or ’s su it ag ai ns t a se cu red pa rty an d re p o ss es si on ag en ts , th e se cu red pa rty can in vo ke th e arb it rat io n cl au se co nt ai ne d wit hi n th e se cu rit y ag reem en t to co m pe l th e de bt or to a r bi tra te al l cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e se cu red pa rty an d it s rep os se ss io n ag en ts wit ho ut reg ard to th e rep os se ss io n ag en ts ’ no ns ig na to ry

st at us

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Rep ly to Is su e II: San ta nd er di d no t wai v e t h e i nc or po rat io n by refe ren ce th eo ry , an d th e ag en cy th eo ry ap pl ie s to Cro ss -Defe nd an ts un de r th e th eo ry of vi cari ou s l ia bi li ty.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Rep ly t o Is su e III: Cen tro pl ex an d Tho mp s o n i n v o ke d th e juri sd ic ti on of th e tri al co ur t b y

fil in g a n a ns wer t o S an ta nd er’s cro ss -cl ai m s.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Rep ly to Is su e IV: Dam ag es sh ou ld no t be award ed to Cro ss
- D e f e n d a nt s be cau se San ta nd er’s ap pe al is no t fr iv ol ou s .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

SUMM ARY OF THE ARGUMENT.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

ARGUMENT.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Rep ly to Is su e I: In a de bt or ’s su it ag ai ns t a se cu red pa rty an d rep os se ss i o n ag en ts , th e se cu red pa rty can in vo ke th e arb it rat io n cl au se co nt ai ne d wit hi n th e se cu rit y ag reem en t to co m pe l th e d e bt or to arb it rat e al l cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e se cu red pa rty an d it s rep os se ss io n ag en ts wit ho ut reg ard to th e rep os se ss io n ag en ts ’ no ns ig na to ry

st at us

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Rep ly to Is su e II : S a n t a n de r di d no t waiv e th e in co rp or at io n by refe ren ce th eo ry , an d th e ag en cy th eo ry ap pl ie s to Cro ss -Defe nd an ts un de r th e th eo ry of vi cari ou s l ia bi li ty.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Rep ly t o Is su e III: Cen tro pl e x a n d Th o m ps on in vo ke d th e juri sd ic ti on of th e tri al co ur t b y

fil in g a n a ns wer t o S an ta nd er’s cro ss -cl ai m s.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Rep ly to Is su e IV: Dam ag es sh ou ld no t be award ed to C r o s s
- D e f en da nt s be cau se San ta nd er’s ap pe al is no t fr iv ol ou s .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

CONCLUSION.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

PRAYER.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

-ii

-CERTIFI CATE OF COMPLIANCE.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

CERTIFI CATE OF SERVICE.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

-ii i-INDEX O F AUTHORI TI ES

Cas es Pag e
Ash ra f v. As hr af

, No. 0 3- 11 -0 04 67 -CV, 2 01 2 Tex . App . LEXIS 43 45 (Tex . App .—Au st in May 24, 2 01 2, n o p et .) (m em . op .).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Bri da s S .A.P.IC. v. Gov’t of Tu rk men is ta n , 34 5 F .3d 34 7 (5 th Cir . 20 03 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 8

Ca rr v. Mai n C

ar r Dev . LLC , 37 7 S .W .3d 48 9 (Te x. Ap p.— Dall as 20 11 , pet . den ie d)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Gen er al Elec . Cre di t Co rp . v. Mid la nd Cen t. Ap pr ai sa l Di st

. , 82 6 S .W .2d 12 4 (Te x. 1 99 1) (pe r cu ria m ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Gil il la nd v. Ta yl or Inv es tmen ts , No. 1 1- 03 -0 01 75 -CV, 2 00 4, Tex . App . LEXIS 85 21 , (Tex . App .–Eas tl an d 2 00 4, p et . den ie d) (m em . op .).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Hun t v. CI T Gro up /C

on su mer Fin ., Inc
., No. 0 3- 09 -0 00 46 -CV, 20 10 Tex. Ap p. LEXIS 2 76 7, (Tex . App .—Au st in Apr. 1 5, 2 01 0, p et . den ie d)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Jen ki ns & Gil ch ri st

v. Rig gs , 87 S.W .3d 19 8 (Te x. Ap p.– Dall as 20 02 , no pe t.).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Mba nk El Pas o v . Sa nc he

z , 83 6 S .W .2d 15 1 (Te x. 1 99 2 )

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 7
McMil la n v . Comp ut er

Tra ns la ti on Sy st ems & Su pp or t, In c. , 66 S.W .3d 47 7 (Te x. Ap p.– Dall as 20 01 , no pe t.).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Moo re v. Elek tr o- Mob il

Tech ni k GMBH

, 87 4 S .W .2d 32 4 (Te x. Ap p.-- El Pas o 1 99 4, wri t d en ie d)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

N8 03 RA, Inc. v. Ha mmer , 11 S.W .3d 36 3 (Te x. Ap p.-- Hou st on [1s t Di st .] 20 00 , no pe t.).

. . . . . . . . . . 9

One Beac on Ins . Co. v. C ro wl ey Ma ri ne Se rv s. , 64 8 F .3d 25 8 (5 th Cir . 20 11 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
SEB, In c. v. Ca mpb el l , No. 0 3- 10 -0 03 75 -CV, 20 11 Tex. Ap p. LEXIS 1 58 8, (Tex . App .–Au st in Mar. 2 , 20 11 , no pe t.) (m em . op .).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

-iv

-Smi th v. Bro wn , 51 S.W .3d 37 6

(Tex . App .—Ho us to n [1 st Dis t.] 20 01 , pet . den ie d)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Sta tute s Pag e
Tex . Bus . & Co m

m . Cod e § 9.6 09

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 7

Tex . Bus . & Co m

m . Cod e Ann .§ 1 7.5 65

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Tex . Civ . Prac. & Rem . Cod e Ann .§ 1 6.0 03

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Tex . Civ . Prac. & Rem . Cod e Ann .§ 1 6.0 04

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Tex . R. Civ . P. 12 0a

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Tex . R. Civ . P. 12 1.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Rule s Pag e
Tex . R. App . P. 9.4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Tex . R. App . P. 45 .2.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

-v
-STATE MENT OF APPELL ANT’S REPLY POI NTS TO APPELL EES’ RESPONSE App el la nt , SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC. (“ San ta nd er”) m ak es th e
fo llo w ing rep ly po in ts to th e res po ns e of App el le es , CENTROPLEX AUTOM O BI L E RECOVERY, INC. (“Ce n t r o p l e x ” ) , B LA K E TH O R N TO N V A N DUSEN (“ Van du se n” ), JOHN F. THOMPSON d / b / a CENTROPLEX AUTOMOBILE RECOVERY, INC. ( “Th om ps on ”), an d REDSHIFT INVESTIGATION, INC. (“ Red sh ift ”) (c ol le ct iv el y cal le d, “ Cro ss -Defe nd an ts ”).

Rep ly to Is su e I: In a de bt or ’s su it ag ai ns t a se cu red pa rty an d rep os se ss i o n ag en ts , th e se cu red pa rty can in vo ke th e arb it rat io n cl au se co nt ai ne d wit hi n th e s e c ur it y ag reem en t to co m pe l th e de bt or to arb it rat e al l cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e se cu red pa rty an d it s rep os se ss io n ag en ts wit ho ut reg ard to th e rep os se ss io n ag en ts ’ no ns ig na to ry

st at us

. Rep ly to Is su e II: San ta nd e r d i d n ot waiv e th e in co rp or at io n by refe ren ce th eo ry , an d th e ag en cy th eo ry ap pl ie s to Cro ss -Defe nd an ts un de r th e th eo ry of vi cari ou s l ia bi li ty.

R e p l y t o Is su e III: Cen tro pl ex an d Tho m ps on in vo ke d th e juri sd ic ti on of t h e tri al co ur t as to all cla im s b y fil in g a n a ns wer t o S an ta nd er’s cro ss -cl ai m s. Rep ly to Is su e IV: Dam ag es sh ou ld no t be awar d e d t o C ro ss -Defe nd an ts be cau se San ta nd er’s ap pe al is no t fr iv ol ou s.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUME NT

San ta nd er can in vo ke th e Arb it rat io n Prov is io n con ta in ed wit hi n th e se cu rit y

ag reem en t to co m

pe l Pl ai nt iff MARIO A. MATA (“ Mat a”) to arb it rat e al l cl ai m s

ag a i n s t San ta nd er as se cu red pa rty an d Cro ss -Defe nd an ts as rep os se ss io n ag en ts
wit ho ut reg ard to th e Cro ss -Defe nd an ts ’ no ns ig na to ry st at us

. San ta nd er di d no t
waiv e th e in co rp or at io n by refe ren ce th eo ry , be cau se San ta nd er arg ue d th is is su e to
th e tr ia l co ur t at th e h eari ng on San ta nd er’s Mo ti on to Co m pe l.

-1

-The Serv ic e Agr eem en t an d Rec ov ery Agr eem en t are de pe nd en t up on se cu red

tra ns act i o n s , s u ch as th e Co nt ract , an d pr ov id ed Cro ss -Defe nd an ts no ti ce of an d

op po rtu ni ty t o r e v i ew th e te rm s of th e un de rlyin g ret ai l in st al lm en t co nt ract s fo r
whi ch reco ve ry se rv ic es were to b e pr ov id ed su ch th at Cro ss -Defe nd an ts m ay be

co m pe ll ed to arb it rat io n un de r th e in co rp or at io n by refe ren ce the or y

. Als o, beca us e
S a nt an de r is vi cari ou sl y li ab le fo r th e act io ns of Cro ss -Defe nd an ts in rep os se ss i n g
Mat a’s ve hi cl e, Cro ss -Defe nd an ts m ay be co m pe ll ed to arb it rat io n un de r th e ag en cy
th eo ry

. Th e t r ia l co ur t an d th is Co ur t ha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er Mat a’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t
Cen tro pl ex an d Tho m

ps on be cau se th ey fil ed an an swe r to San ta nd er’s cro ss -cl ai m s,

co ns en ti ng to th e juri sd ic ti on of th e tri al co ur t. And , Cro ss -Defe nd an ts fai l to sh ow
th at San ta nd er’s ap pe al is fri vo lo us , so th ey are n ot en ti tl ed to da m ag es

. ARGUMENT Repl y to Is su e I: In a debt or ’s su it a g a i ns t a se cure d pa rty an d
r e p os se ss io n ag ents , the se cure d pa rty ca n in vo k e the ar bi tra tio n cl au se co nta in ed w ith in the se curi ty ag reement to co m pel the debt or to ar bi tra te al l cl ai ms a g a i n st the se cure d pa rty an d its repo ss es si on ag ents w ith ou t reg ar d to the re po ss es si on ag ents ’ no ns ig na to ry sta tus

. Cro ss -Defe nd an ts se ek to cas t th em se lv es as st ran ge rs to th e co nt ract in whi ch

Mat a gr an t e d to San ta nd er a se cu rit y in te res t in th e ve hi cl e th at Cro ss -Defe nd an ts

rep os se ss ed

. Cro ss -Defe nd an ts bo il th is li ti ga ti on do wn to two un di sp ut ed fact s: (1 )
th e co nt ract s be twee n San ta nd er an d Cro ss -Defe nd an ts do no t co nt ai n arb it rat io n

pr ov is io ns ; an d (2 ) th e Cro ss -Defe nd an ts ne ve r sa w th e co nt ract ex ecu te d by Mat a
fo r th e sa le an d fin an ce of th e ve hi cl e th ey ad m it to ha ve rep os se ss ed

. The se fact s are

are u nd is pu te d, b ut irr el ev an t.

-2

-Equ al ly un di sp ut ed are th e rel ev an t an d m at e r i al fact s whi ch un de rp in

San ta nd er’s arg um en t an d whi ch are ig no red by th e Cro ss -Defe nd an ts

. San ta nd er is

a se cu red p a r ty in whi ch Mat a is a de bt or

. (CR 71 -7 2.) San ta nd er he ld a pe rfec te d

pu rch as e m on ey fin an ci ng in th e ve hi cl e own ed by Mat a. (CR 73 -7 4.) To en fo rce it s

se cu rit y in te res t in th e Mat a ve hi cl e, San ta nd er co nt ract ed wit h Red sh ift , who in tu rn

co nt ract ed wit h Cen tro pl ex , who em pl oyed Van du se n to rep os se ss Ma t a ’s v eh ic le

. (CR 81 -8 5, 34 -4 6.) Mat a al le ge s th at du rin g th e co ur se of Van du se n’s rep os se ss io n
of th e ve hi cl e, he was in

jure d. Th e r e l a t i on sh ip be twee n th e se cu red pa rty an d th e

rep os se ss or s fo rm s th e ba si s of Mat a’s c l a i ms ag ai ns t San ta nd er as st at ed in hi s
Pl ai nt iff ’s Orig in al Pet it io n: “

. . . w h e n at te m pt in g rep os se ss io n, th e le nd er ha s th e

s p eci fic le ga l du ty of in su rin g ne it he r th e le nd er no r an y of it s ag en ts or

rep res en ta ti ve s br each th e pe ace. Tex

. Bu s. & Co m

. Co de Ann

. §9 .60 9( b) (3 ); Mba nk
El Pas o, N.A. v. Sa nc he

z , 83 6 S.W .2d 15 1, 15 1- 1 5 4 (Tex

. 19 92 ). Thi s is a no nde le ga bl e d ut y

. Id

. ” (CR 8.)

Cro ss -Defe nd an ts are no t st ran ge rs to th is se cu red tra ns act io n, b ut are ac ti ve

pa rti ci pa nt s co m

pe ns at ed fo r th ei r rep os se ss io n se rv ic es

. (CR 81 , 84 , 15 0.) It is
di si ng en uo us for th e Cro ss -Defe nd an ts to de cry th e th reat en ed lo ss of th ei r rig ht to
tri al by jury by an un se en se cu rit y ag reem en t, in th e ab se nc e o f w h i c h a ny

rep os se ss io n t he y

pe rfo rm ed wou ld be un la wfu l.

-3

-Repl y to Is su e II : Sa nta nder di d no t w ai ve the in co rpo ra tio n by refe renc e

theo ry , an d the ag ency t h e o r y ap pl ie s to Cro ss -Defe nda nts unde r the theo ry of v ic ar io us li ab il ity

. Cro ss -Defe nd an ts arg ue th at San ta nd er fai le d to rai se th e ex cep ti on of

in co rp or at io n by refe ren ce in th e tri al co ur t, su ch th at it waiv ed th is is su e on ap pe al

. Cro ss -Defe nd an ts ci te Bri da s S.A.P.IC. v. Gov ’t of Tu rk men is ta n , 34 5 F.3 d 34 7, 35 6-

57 (5 th Ci r. 20 03 ) an d Ca rr v. Mai n Ca rr Dev. LLC , 3 7 7 S

. W. 3 d 48 9, 49 4 (Tex

. App .—Dal la s 20 11 , pe t. de ni ed ) fo r th is pr op os it io n. Howev er, Bri da s st an ds fo r th e

pr op os it io n t ha t ar gu m en ts th at are i ns uf fic ie nt ly add res se d i n t he bo dy o f th e br ie f

on ap pe al , are waiv ed

. Id

. San ta nd er’s br ie f th or ou gh ly ad dr es se s th e in co rp or at io n by refe ren ce th eo ry

. Alt ho ug h th is th eo ry m ay no t ha ve be en ex pl ic it ly ad dr es se d in

San ta nd er’s Mo ti on to Co m pe l, it was rai se d in th e tri al co ur t at th e he ari ng on t he

Mo ti on to Co m

pe l. Co un se l fo r San ta nd er ar gu ed to th e tr ia l co ur t:
So fo r th es e p art ie s t o s ay , well , th ey ha d n ot hi ng to do wit h th is ret ai l in st al lm en t co nt ract , th at is ab so lu te ly wit h ig no ran ce of th e fact s of th is
cas e be cau se o f th e act io ns th ey were ta ki ng

. The y kn ew th ey were act in g on be ha lf of a se cu red cred it or

. . . .W he n th es e d e f e nd an ts en ga ge d to ta ke on th is wor k, to rep os se ss Mr. Mat a's m ot or ve hi cl e, th ey kn ew fu ll well why th ey were d o in g it

. And th es e ag reem en ts be twee n th e pa rti es th at , ag ai n, do no t co nt ai n a r b i t rat io n cl au se s, an d I wil l no t sa y th at th ey do , bu t th e fo cu s of ev ery on e of th es e co nt ract s is fo r on e pu rp os e an d on e pu rp os e on ly an d th at is to en fo rce a se cu red pa rty's rig ht in co ll ect io n, reco ve ry , rep os se ss io n of it s co ll at eral

. So far
as th es e ag reem en ts pr ov id e, You r Hon or , th es e pe op le ha ve no bu si ne ss ex cep t fo r th e pu rp os e of act in g as rep os se ss or s. The y were no t en ga ge d by San ta nd er to do an y th in g el se

. So fo r th em to sa y th at , y ou kn ow, th e y weren 't in vo lv ed in th e fin an ce tra ns act io n, th ey were, pu re an d si m pl e. Tha t was th e ve ry na tu re of th ei r bu s i n e ss

. Now, y es , we ha ve cl ai m s be twee n ou rs e l ve s fo r in de m ni fic at io n an d co nt rib ut io n. Tha t's
no t wha t we're se ek in g to ha ve arb it rat ed , Yo ur Hon or . I t's Mr. Mat a's cl ai m s. And Mr. M a t a ' s c l a im s no t on ly d ire ct ly ag ai ns t m y cl ie nt , b ut ag ai ns t al l p art ie s fo r who m m y cli en t m us t an swe r. (RR 1 :1 0, l in es 1-6 , 11 -2 5; RR 1 :1 1, l in es 1-7 .)

-4

-. . . [T]hes e cl ai m s th at Mr. Mat a ha s ag ai ns t al l of th es e de fen da nt s m us t be arb it rat ed , no t wit hs ta nd in g th e fact t h a t t h e se rep os se ss or s di d no t kn ow th at th ere was an arb it rat io n cl au se

. W ha t th ey di d kn ow is th at th ere was a se cu red tra ns act io n. W ha t th ey di d kn ow was th at th ey were be in g t as ke d wi th rep os se ss in g t he co ll at eral . They kne w th at

. (RR 1 :1 8, l in es 19 -2 5.)

Thi s arg um en t by co un se l fo r San ta nd er at th e he ari ng on San ta nd er’s Mo ti on

to Co m pe l ad va nc ed th e th eo ry

th at th e Serv ic e Agr eem en t be twee n San ta nd er an d
Red sh ift , an d th e Rec ov ery Agr eem en t b e t w e e n Red sh ift an d Cen tro pl ex are
de pe nd en t up on an d in co rp or at e by refe ren ce th e ret ai l in st al lm en t co nt ract s, su ch as
th e Co nt ract ex ecu te d by Mat a, th at gr an t a se cu rit y in te res t in th e co ll at eral an d fo r
whi ch Red sh ift an d C en tro pl ex are t o p ro vi de reco ve ry ser vi ces for su ch co ll at eral

. The Serv ic e Agr eem en t an d th e Rec ov ery Agr eem en t in co rp or at e b y refe ren ce th e

un de rlyin g ret ai l in st al lm en t con tra ct s for whi ch reco ve ry se rv ic es wil l be pr ov id ed

an d are de pe nd en t up on se cu red tra ns act io ns , su ch as th e Co nt ract

. Thu s, San ta nd er
di d n ot waiv e th is th eo ry

on ap pe al

. Cro ss -Defe nd a nt s arg ue th at ev en if San ta nd er di d no t waiv e th is th eo ry , t he

in co rp or at io n by refe ren ce th eo ry do es no t ap pl y be cau se th e Serv ic e Agr eem en t an d

Rec ov ery Agr eem en t do no t ex pl i c i t l y, or im pl ic it ly, in co rp or at e or ev en refe ren ce
th e sp eci fic Co nt ract ex ecu te d b y Mat a. Howev er, t erm s i nc or po rat ed by refe ren ce
wil l be va li d so lo ng as it is cl ear th at th e pa rti es to th e ag reem en t ha d kn owl ed ge of

an d a s s e n te d to th e in co rp or at ed te rm s. One Bea co n In s. Co

. v. Cr ow le y Mar in e
Se rv s. , 64 8 F.3 d 25 8, 26 8 (5 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Not ic e of in co rp or at ed te rm s is reas on ab le
whe re, un de r th e pa rti cu la r fact s of th e cas e, a reas on ab ly pr ud en t pe rs on sh ou ld ha ve

se en th em

. Id

.

-5

-A pa rty wi t h n o t ic e of an d op po rtu ni ty to rev ie w co nt ract te rm s is bo un d by

th os e te rm s ev en whe re pa rty ha s no t read th em

. Id

. As sh own ab ov e in San ta nd er’s

co un se l’s arg um en t at th e he ari ng on San ta nd er’s Mo ti on to Co m pe l, an d in

San ta nd er’s pr in ci pa l br ie f, th e Serv ic e Agr eem en t an d th e Rec ov ery Agr eem en t
i n c or po rat e by refe ren ce th e un de rlyin g ret ai l in st al lm en t co nt ract s fo r wh i c h

reco ve ry se rv ic es wil l be pr ov id ed an d are de pe nd en t up on se cu red tra ns act io ns , su ch

as th e Co nt ract

. Cro ss -Defe nd an ts ha d kn owl ed ge of an d as se nt ed to th e te rm s of th e

ret ai l in st al lm en t co nt ract s be cau se th ei r rig ht s u nd er Se rv ic e Agr eem en t Rec ov ery Agr eem en t to en ga ge in rep os se ss io ns were de riv ed fro m th e ve ry te rm s of th e ret ai l

in st al lm en t co nt ract s, ev en if th e y h a d n o t read th e ret ai l in st al lm en t co nt ract s. As

su ch , C ro ss -Defe nd an ts , a s no ns ig na to ri e s t o th e Co nt ract , a re bo un d to arb it rat io n

un de r th e th eo ry

of i nc or po rat io n b y

refer en ce.
Cro ss -Defe nd an ts al so arg ue th a t th e ag en cy th eo ry do es no t bi nd th em , as

no ns ig na to rie s, to arb it rat io n. Cro ss -Defe nd an ts as se rt th at th e cas es th at San ta nd er
ci te s in su pp or t of th e pr op os it io n th at a no ns ig na to ry can be co m pe ll ed to arb it rat io n

un de r th e ag en cy th eo ry are i n a p p o si te be cau se th es e cas es in vo lv e a no ns ig na to ry

ag en t o r em

pl oyee se ek in g t o c om

pe l ar bi tra ti on ag ai ns t t he si gn at or ie s.
Bu t, th e ho ld in gs in th es e cas es are no t li m it ed to th e sp eci fic fact s an d br oa dl y
ho ld th at when th e p rin ci pa l i s b ou nd by the ter m s o f a va li d arb it rat io n ag reem en t,
it s age nt s, em

pl oyees, an d re pr es en ta ti ve s ar e al so co ve red by th e ag reem en t. SEB,

I n c

. v. Ca mpb el l , No. 03 -1 0- 00 37 5- CV, 20 11 Tex

. App

. LEXIS 15 88 , *9 (Te x

. App .–Au st in Mar

. 2, 20 11 , no pe t.) (m em

. op .); Gil il la nd v. Ta yl or In ves tmen ts , No.

11 -0 3- 00 17 5- CV, 20 04 Tex

. App

. LEXIS 85 21 , *8 -9 (Tex

. App .–Eas tl an d 20 04 , pe t.

-6

-de ni ed ) (m em

. op .); McMil la n v. Co mpu te r Tr an sl at io n Sy st ems & Su pp or t, In c. , 66

S.W .3d 4 7 7 , 4 81 (Tex

. App .–Dal la s 20 01 , no pe t.) (n on si gn at or ie s of arb it rat io n

ag reem en t s may b e bo un d by th e ag reem en t un de r or di na ry co nt ract an d ag en cy

pr in ci pl es ).

Cro ss -Defe nd an ts al so arg ue th at th ey are in de pe nd en t co nt ract or s, no t ag en ts , of Sa n t a n de r su ch th at th ey can no t be co m pe ll ed to arb it rat io n. The y cl ai m th at
Jen ki ns & Gil ch ri st

v. Rig gs , 87 S.W .3d 19 8, 2 02 (Tex . App .–Dal la s 2 00 2, n o p et .)

su pp or ts th is po si ti on

. In Rig gs , th e co ur t of ap pe al s fo un d th at an at to rn ey , who was

a no ns ig na to ry to an arb it rat io n ag reem en t be twee n hi s cl ie nt , a te le vi si on st at io n, an d

an em pl oyee of th e te le vi si on st at io n th at req ui red arb it rat io n of an y di sp ut es be twee n

em pl oyees an d th e te le vi si on st at io n “ a n d/ or ” th e ag en ts of th e te le vi si on st at io n,

co ul d no t co m

pe l arb it r a t i o n a s t o th e em pl oyee’s c la im s ag ai ns t hi m on an ag en cy
th eo ry be cau se th e at to rn ey was an in de pe nd en t co nt ract or to th e te le vi s i o n st at io n

an d no t an e mp l o ye e

. Id

. at 20 1- 20 2. The co ur t of ap pe al s fo un d th at th e te rm

“ ag en ts ” in cl ud es th os e pe rs on s fo r who m th e te le vi si on st at io n wou ld be vi cari ou sl y
li ab le bu t th at an at to rn ey can ne ve r ve st in a th ird pe rs on ad eq ua te co nt ro l to ren de r
th at th ird pe rs on vi cari ou sl y li ab le for hi s co nd uc t. Id . at 2 02

. Here, ho wev er, al th ou gh Cro ss -Defe nd an ts arg ue th at t h ey are in de pe nd en t

co nt ract or s, th ey fai l to ad dr es s th at as m at te r of la w, San ta nd er is vi cari ou sl y li ab le
fo r th e act io ns of Cr o s s
- Defen da nt s in rep os se ss in g Mat a’s ve hi cl e. Tex

. Bu s. &

Co m m . Cod e § 9.6 09 (b )(2 ); Mba nk , 83 6 S .W .2d at 1 53 -5 4.

-7-Fo r th e pu rp os es of arb it r a t i o n, th is m ak es Cro ss -Defe nd an ts ag en ts of

San ta nd er. And , Cro ss -Defe nd an ts ci te no au th or it y to su pp or t th ei r co nt en ti on th at
th ey m ay no t be co m

pe ll ed to arb it rat io n un de r th e ag en cy th e o r y pu rs ua nt to
San ta nd er’s v ic ari ou s l ia bi li ty for t he ir a ct io ns

. Cro ss -Defe nd an ts ci te to Bri da s , 34 5 F.3 d at 35 6- 57 fo r th e pr op os it io n th at th e

ag en cy th eo ry bi nd s a no ns ig na to ry on ly whe n a pa rty to t h e a r b it rat io n ag reem en t
si gn ed as th e ag en t of th e no ns ig na to ry

. Thu s, th ey arg ue , San ta nd er wou ld ha ve to
sh ow th at it si gn ed th e Arb it rat io n Pro vi si on as an ag en t of th e C r o s s
- D e fen da nt s.
Howev e r , th at is no t th e ho ld in g of Bri da s

. In Bri da s , Bri da s en te red in to a joi nt

ve nt ur e ag reem en t wit h Turk m en ne ft, a pr od uc ti on as so ci at io n fo rm ed an d own ed by
th e go ve rn m en t of Turk m en is ta n. Id

. at 35 1. The go ve rn m en t of Turk m en is ta n was

no t a si gn at or y to th e joi nt ve nt ur e ag reem en t, whi ch co nt ai ne d an arb it rat io n cl au se

. Id

. a t 35 1- 52

. The go ve rn m en t of Turk m en is ta n la te r or de red Bri da s to su sp en d it s

wor k un de r th e joi nt ve nt ur e ag reem en t an d pr oh ib it ed Bri da s fro m m ak in g im po rts

a n d e xp or ts in or fro m Turk m en is ta n. Id

. at 35 2. Bri da s in it ia te d arb it rat i o n

pr oc eed in gs , in cl ud in g th e go ve rn m en t of Turk m en is ta n as a pa rty, an d th e di st ric t

co ur t fo un d th at th e go ve rn m en t was bo un d to arb it rat io n un de r th e pr i n c i p l e s o f

ag en cy an d e qu it ab le est op pe l. Id . at 3 52 , 35 4.
The F i f t h Ci rcu it fo un d th at th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce th at th e pa rti es
in te nd ed Turk m en ne ft to si gn th e joi nt ve nt ur e ag reem en t as an ag e n t of th e

go ve rn m en t of Turk m en is ta n an d th us fo un d th at th e di st ric t co ur t erred in co m pe ll in g
th e g ov ern m en t o f Tur km en is ta n t o a rb it rat io n. Id . at 3 58

.

-8-As di sc us se d ab ov e, Cro ss
- Defen da nt s’ st at us as ag en ts fo r pu rp os es of

arb it rat io n is es ta bl is he d as a m at te r of la w. Th u s , C r os s- Defen da nt s m ay be

co m pe ll ed t o a r b it rat io n un de r th e in co rp or at io n by refe ren ce th eo ry or th e ag en cy
th eo ry , an d th e tri al co ur t erre d in fai li ng to or de r Mat a’s cl ai m s ag a i ns t Cro ss
Defen da nt s t o a rb it rat io n. Repl y to Is su e II I: Centro pl ex an d Tho m ps on inv ok ed the juri sd ic tio n of the tr ia l co urt by fil in g a n a ns w er to Sa nta nder ’s cro ss -cl ai m s.
Cen t r o p l e x an d Tho m

ps on arg ue th at th ere are no arb it rab le cl ai m s as se rte d

ag ai ns t th em be cau se Mat a ne ve r se rv ed th em wit h th e pe ti ti on in whi ch he as se rte d
cl ai m s ag ai ns t t he m

. Thi s argu m en t is com pl et el y wit ho ut m eri t. “ An ans wer sha ll

co ns ti tu te an ap pe aran ce of th e de fen da nt so as to di sp en se wit h th e ne ces si ty fo r th e
is su an ce or se rv ic e of ci ta ti on up on hi m .” Tex

. R. Ci v. P. 12 1. A pa rty en te rs a

ge ne ral ap pe aran ce wh e n e v e r i t in vo ke s th e jud gm en t of th e co ur t on an y qu es ti on

ot he r th an th e co ur t's juri sd ic ti on , or se ek s affi rm at iv e act io n fro m th e co ur t on ot he r
is su es

. Moo re v. Ele kt

ro- Mob il Tech ni k GMBH

, 87 4 S.W .2d 32 4, 32 7 (Tex

. App .—El

Pas o 19 94 , w r i t d e n ie d)

. Cen tro Pl ex an d Tho m ps on fil ed an an swe r in th is cas e

as se rti ng affi rm at iv e de fen se s ag ai ns t Ma ta ’s cl ai m s, as se rti ng cro ss -cl ai m s ag ai ns t
Red sh ift , an d pr ay in g th at [Ma ta ] an d San ta nd er ta ke no th in g by th is su it

. . . .” (CR

24 -2 7.)

Cen tro Pl ex an d Tho m

ps on fai le d to m ak e an y ob jecti on s to th e juri sd ic ti on of
th e tri al an d fai le d to fil e a sp eci al ap pe aran ce; th us , th ey m ad e a ge ne ral ap pe aran ce

an d co ns en te d to th e tri al co ur t’s juri sd ic ti on

. Se e Tex

. R. Ci v. P. 12 0a ; Tex

. R. Ci v.
P. 12 1; N8 03 RA, In c. v. Hammer , 1 1 S.W .3d 36 3, 36 6 (Tex

. App .—Ho us to n [1 st
Dis t.] 20 00 , no pe t.).

-9-Cen tro Pl ex an d Tho m ps on al s o a rg ue th at th e li m it at io ns pe rio d ha s ex pi red

on Mat a’s c l a i ms f

o r pe rs on al in

jury on Feb ru ary 23 , 20 13 , th at th ey were ne ve r

se rv ed wit h Mat a’s cl ai m s, an d th at San ta nd er fai le d to fil e it s cro ss -cl ai m s un ti l aft er
th e ex pi rat io n of th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns

. Mat a ha s as se rte d se ve ral di ffer en t cau se s
of act io n, so m e wit h a two -y ear st at ut e of li m it at io ns , an d so m e wit h a fo u r
- ye a r

st at ut e o f li m it at io ns , as fo ll ows :

• br each of co nt ract - 4 y ears

. Tex

. Ci v. Prac

. & Rem

. C o de Ann

. § 16 .00 4( a),(c );

• co nv ers io n - 2 y ears . Tex. Ci v. Pr ac. & Re m . Cod e Ann . § 1 6.0 03 4( a);

• co m

m on -la w frau d - 4 y ears

. Tex

. Ci v. Prac

. & Rem

. Co de Ann

. § 16 .00 4( a);

• tre sp as s t o r e al pr op ert y - 2 y ears

. Tex

. Ci v. Prac

. & Rem

. Co de Ann

. § 16 .00 3( a);

• g r o s s n e gl ig en ce - 2 y ears

. Tex

. Ci v. Prac

. & Rem

. Co de Ann

. § 16 .00 3( a);
an d;

• vi ol at io ns of th e Tex as Decep ti ve Trad e Prac ti ces Act - 2 y ears

. Tex

. Bu s. & Co m m . Cod e Ann .§ 1 7.5 65

.
• Mat a fil ed hi s su it on Feb ru ary 22 , 20 13 , an d th e ev en t co m pl ai ne d of oc cu rred

on Feb ru ary 2 3, 20 1 1

. ( CR 3- 10 .) Thu s, Mat a fil ed su it on e da y be fo re th e st at ut e
of li m it at io ns ex pi red on hi s ca us es of act io n wit h a two -y ear st at ut e o f li m it at io ns ,

an d t he cla im s ar e n ot ti m e-b arre d.

Cen tro pl ex an d Tho m

ps on ’s arg um en ts th at th ey are no t su bjec t to th e juri sd ic ti on of th e tri al co ur t or th is Co ur t an d t h a t Mat a’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t th em are
ti m e-b arre d a re wi th ou t m eri t.

-10-Repl y to Is su e IV: Damag es sho ul d no t be a w ar ded to Cros sDefen da nts beca us e Sa nta nder ’s ap pea l i s no t fri vo lo us

. Ru le 45 pe rm it s an ap pe ll at e co ur t to award a pr ev ai li ng pa rty "jus t da m ag es "
fo r "fr iv ol ou s ap pe al s." Te x. R. App

. P. 45 .2. The ap pe ll at e co ur t ap pl ie s an
ob jecti ve te st in de te rm in in g whe th er an ap pe al is fr i v ol ou s. Ash ra f v. Ash ra f , No.

03 -1 1- 00 46 7- CV, 20 12 Tex

. App

. LEXIS 43 45 , at *2 7- 28 (Tex

. App .—Au st in May

24 , 20 12 , no pe t.) (m em

. op .). The ap pe ll at e co ur t rev ie ws th e reco rd fro m th e
vi ewp oi nt of

th e ad vo cat e an d as k whe th er th e ad vo cat e ha d reas on ab le gr ou nd s to
be li ev e th e jud gm en t co ul d be rev ers ed

. Id

. at *2 8. W he th er to gr an t sa nc ti on s fo r a
fri vo lo us ap pe al is a m at te r wit hi n th e ap pe ll at e co ur t’s di sc ret io n, th at an ap pe ll at e

co ur t exer ci se s with pru de nc e an d cau ti on an d on ly aft er carefu l del ib erat io n; bu t it

w il l do so on ly in ci rcu m st an ces th at are tru ly eg reg io us

. Id

. The fact t h a t a n

ap pe ll at e co ur t re

jects a pa rty’ s ar gu m en ts , or e ve n fi nd s defi ci en ci es in th e ap pe al , do es no t co ns ti tu te “ tru ly eg reg io us ci rcu m st an ces .” Id

. Thi s is be cau se th e rig ht to

ap pe al is a m os t sa cred on e. Smi t h v

. Br ow n , 51 S.W .3d 37 6, 38 1 (Tex

. App

. —Ho us to n [1 st Dis t.] 20 01 , pet . den ie d)

. San ta nd er’s ap pe al co ns ti tu te s an in fo rm ed , go od -fai th ch al le ng e to th e tri al

co ur t’s or de r de nyin g San ta nd er’s m ot io n to co m pe l arb it rat io n wit h reg ard to Mat a’s
cl ai m s aga in st Cro ss -Defe nd an ts

. Se e Hun t v. CIT Gro up /C on su mer Fin
., In c., No.

03 -0 9- 00 04 6- CV, 20 10 Tex

. App

. LEXIS 27 67 , at *2 9 (Tex

. App .—Au st in Apr

. 15 , 20 10 , pe t. de ni ed ) (m em

. op .) (ci ti ng Gen er al Elec

. Cr ed it Co rp

. v

. M i d la nd Cen t. App ra is al Dis t. , 82 6 S.W .2d 12 4, 12 5 (Tex

. 19 91 ) (p er cu ria m )). San ta nd er’s

arg um en ts are su pp or te d wit h fact ua l st at em en ts fro m th e reco rd an d le ga l au th or iti es ,

an d i ts arg um en ts ha ve leg al m eri t.

-11-A reas on ab le at to rn ey co ul d co nc lu de , ba se d on San ta nd er’s arg um en ts , th at

th e Arb it rat io n Pro vi si on co nt ai ne d in th e Co nt ract is in co rp or at ed by refe ren ce in to
th e Serv ic e Agr eem en t an d th e Rec ov ery A g r eem en t or th at Cro ss -Defe nd an ts are
bo un d to arb it rat e un de r an ag en cy th e o r y s u c h th at Cro ss -Defe nd an t are bo un d to
arb it rat e Mat a’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t th em

. Cro ss -Def e n d a n t s fai l to sh ow an y “ tru ly

eg reg io us ci rcu m st an ces ” th at warra nt an award of da m ag es ag ai ns t San ta nd er. Thu s,
th is Co ur t s ho ul d n ot award da m ag es to Cro ss -Defe nd an ts

. CONCLUSI ON

San ta nd er can in vo ke th e Arb it rat io n Prov is io n con ta in ed wit hi n th e se cu rit y

ag reem en t to co m

pe l Mat a to arb it rat e al l cl ai m s ag ai ns t Sant an de r as se cu red pa rty

an d Cro ss -Defe nd an ts as rep os se ss io n agen ts w ith out re ga rd to the Cr oss -D ef

en da nt s’

no ns ig na to ry st at us

. San ta nd er di d no t waiv e th e in co rp or at io n by refe ren ce th eo ry , be cau se San ta nd er arg ue d t h i s is su e to th e tri al co ur t at th e he ari ng on San ta nd er’s

Mo ti on to Co m

pe l. The Serv ic e Agr eem en t an d Rec ov ery Agr eem en t are de pe nd en t

up on se cu red tra ns act io ns , su ch as th e Co nt ract , an d p r ov id ed Cro ss -Defe nd an ts

no ti ce of an d op po rtu ni ty to rev ie w th e te rm s of th e u n d e r l yi n g ret ai l in st al lm en t

co ntr act s fo r whi ch reco ve ry se rv ic es were to be pr ov id ed su ch th at Cro ss -Defe nd an ts

m ay be co m

pe ll ed to arb it rat io n un de r th e in co rp or at io n by refe ren ce th eo ry

. Als o,
be cau se San ta n d e r i s vi cari ou sl y li ab le fo r th e act io ns of Cro ss -Defe nd an ts in

re poss es sin g Ma

ta ’s ve hi cl e, Cro ss -Defe nd an ts m ay be co m pe ll ed to ar

bit ra tio n unde r
th e ag en cy

th eo ry

.

-12-The tri al co ur t, an d th is Co ur t, ha ve juri sd ic ti on ov e r Mat a’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t

Cen tro pl ex an d Tho m

ps on be cau se th ey fil ed an an swe r to San ta nd er’s cro ss -cl ai m s,

co ns en ti ng to th e juri sd ic ti on of th e tri al co ur t. And , Cro ss -Defe nd an ts fai l to sh ow
th at San ta nd er’s ap pe al is fri vo lo us , so th ey are n ot en ti tl ed to da m ag es

. PRAYER

W HEREFORE, PR EMISES CONSIDERED, App el la nt , SANTANDER

CONS U M ER USA, INC., fu ll y pr ay s th at th is Co ur t gr an t or al arg um en t on th is

ap pe al , and th erea fte r, rev ers e th e tri al co ur t’s ord er den y in g San ta nd er’s m ot io n t o

co m pe l a r b i t rat io n as to Mat a’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e ot he r Defen da nt s, en te r an or de r

co m pe ll in g arb it rat io n of al l of Mat a’s cl ai m s in th e un de rlyin g cau se of act io n, an d
fo r al l ot he r an d fu rth er rel ie f to whi ch San ta nd e r C o ns um er USA, In c. m ay sh ow
it se lf t o b e jus tl y

en ti tl ed

.

Res pe ct fu ll y su bm it te d,

D E V L I N , N A Y L O R & T U R

B Y F I L L , P

. L

. L

. C

.

DONALD L. TURBYFILL St at e Bar of Tex as # 2 02 96 38 0 dt ur byfil l@ dn tl aw.co m

[ E

- MAIL ] DEBORAH C. S. RIHERD St at e Bar of Tex as # 2 40 38 90 4 dr ih erd @d nt la w.com

[ E

- MAIL ] VICKI W. HART St at e Bar of Tex as # 2 40 46 03 7 vh art @d nt la w.com

[ E

- MAIL ] 48 01 W oo dwa y , Sui te 42 0- W es t Hou st on , Texa s 7 70 56 -1 80 5 (7 13 ) 62 2- 83 38 [ P HONE ] (7 13 ) 58 6- 70 53 [ F A CSIMILE ] ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC.

-13-CERTI FICATE OF COMPLI ANCE

I cert ify th at th is do cu m en t was pr o d u ced on a co m pu te r us in g Co rel W or dP erfe ct X5 an d co nt ai ns 3,1 50 wor ds , as de te rm in ed by th e co m pu te r so ftwa re's
wor d- co un t fu nc ti on , exc lu di ng th e se ct io ns of th e d oc um en t l is te d i n Tex . R. App

. P. 9.4 (i) (1 ).

DEBORAH C. S. RIHERD

CERTI FICATE OF SERVI CE
The un de rs ig ne d do es he reb y cert ify th at a tru e an d co rrec t co py of th e ab ov e an d fo reg oi ng in st ru m en t was se rv ed up on th e fo ll owi ng pa rti es ei th er el ect ro ni cal ly th ro ug h an el ect ro ni c fil in g m an ag er or in th e al te rn at iv e se rv ed by fax pr io r to 5: 00 p.m ., in pe rs on , by m ai l, co m m erci al de li ve ry se rv ic e, or em ai l, on Feb ru ary 9, 20 15 :

Mar io A. Mata Mar io A. Mata , PLLC 11 1 C on gr es s Av en ue , Sui te 40 0Au st in , Texa s 7 87 01 (5 12 ) 68 1- 44 61 [ P HONE ] (5 12 ) 68 2- 21 47 [ F A CSIMILE ] APPELLEE, pro se
Dav id L. Treat dl t@ ls tl aw.co m

[ E

- MAIL ] Lin do w Ste ph en s Tre at , LLP The Vog ue Bu il di ng 60 0 Nav arro Str eet , Six th Flo or San Ant on io , Texa s 7 82 05 (2 10 ) 22 7- 22 00 [ P HONE ] (2 10 ) 22 7- 46 02 [ F A CSIMILE ] ATTORNEY FOR APPELLE ES REDSHIFT INVESTIGATION INC. Jo hn S. Kene fic k JKe ne fic k@ Mac do na ld Dev in .co m [ E

- MAIL ] Jo hn R. Sig et y JS ig et y @M acd on al dDe vi n.c om [ E

- MAIL ] Mac Don al d Dev in , P.C. 38 00 Ren ai ss an ce To wer 12 01 Elm Str eet Dall as , Texa s 7 52 70 -2 13 0 (2 14 ) 74 4- 33 00 [ P HONE ] (2 14 ) 74 7- 09 42 [ F A CSIMILE ] ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE BLAKE THORNTO N VANDUSEN

Karen C. Bu rg es s kb ur ge ss @r ic ha rd so nb ur ge ss .co m [ E

- MAIL ] Ri ch ard so n + Bu rg es s LLP 22 1 West 6 Str eet , Sui te 90 0

th Aus ti n, Tex as 78 70 1- 34 45 (5 12 ) 48 2- 88 08 [ P HONE ] (5 12 ) 49 9- 88 86 [ F A CSIMILE ] ATTORNEY FOR APPELLE ES CENTROPLEX AUTO MOBILE RECOVERY, INC. AND JOHN F. THOMPSON

DEBORAH C. S. RIHERD

-14-NO. 03-14-00782-CV

IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC.

Appellant,

v. MARIO A. MATA, CENTROPLEX AUTOMOBILE RECOVERY, INC., JOHN F. THOMPSON d/b/a CENTROPLEX AUTOMOBILE RECOVERY, INC. REDSHIFT INVESTIGATION, INC., and BLAKE THORNTON VANDUSEN, Appellees.

Appealed from the 353rd Judicial District Court Travis County, Texas

APPELLANT SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC.’S AMENDED

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on February 9, 2015, SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., Appellant herein, served a true and correct copy of the REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT in a manner prescribed by Tex. R. Civ. P. 21a, on the following:

Mario A. Mata Mario A. Mata, PLLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 681-4461 [ P HONE ] (512) 682-2147 [ F ACSIMILE ] APPELLEE, pro se John S. Kenefick JKenefick@MacdonaldDevin.com [ E- MAIL ] John R. Sigety JSigety@MacdonaldDevin.com [ E- MAIL ] MacDonald Devin, P.C. 3800 Renaissance Tower 1201 Elm Street Dallas, Texas 75270-2130 (214) 744-3300 [ P HONE ] (214) 747-0942 [ F ACSIMILE ] ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE BLAKE THORNTON VANDUSEN ACCEPTED 03-14-00782-CV 4075522 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/9/2015 2:40:37 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKDav id L. Treat

dl t@ ls tl aw.co m

[ E

- MAIL ] Ch ris to ph er A. Lot z cl ot z@ ls tl aw.co m

[ E

- MAIL ] Lin do w Ste ph en s Tre at , LLP The Vog ue Bu il di ng 60 0 Nav arro Str eet , Six th Flo or San Ant on io , Texa s 7 82 05 (2 10 ) 22 7- 22 00 [ P HONE ] (2 10 ) 22 7- 46 02 [ F A CSIMILE ] ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE S REDSHIFT INVESTIGATION INC. Karen C. Bu rg es s kb ur ge ss @r ic ha rd so nb ur ge ss .co m [ E

- MAIL ] Ri ch ard so n + Bu rg es s LLP 22 1 West 6 Str eet , Sui te 90 0

th Aus ti n, Tex as 78 70 1- 34 45 (5 12 ) 48 2- 88 08 [ P HONE ] (5 12 ) 49 9- 88 86 [ F A CSIMILE ] ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE S CENTROPLEX AUTO MOBILE RECOVERY, INC. AND JOHN F. THOMPSON

Res pe ct fu ll y

su bm it te d,

D E V L I N , N A Y L O R & T U R

B Y F I L L , P

. L

. L

. C

.

DONALD L. TURBYFILL St at e Bar of Tex as # 2 02 96 38 0 dt ur byfil l@ dn tl aw.co m

[ E

- MAIL ] DEBORAH C. S. RIHERD St at e Bar of Tex as # 2 40 38 90 4 dr ih erd @d nt la w.com

[ E

- MAIL ] VICKI W. HART St at e Bar of Tex as # 2 40 46 03 7 vh art @d nt la w.com

[ E

- MAIL ] 48 01 W oo dwa y , Sui te 42 0- W es t Hou st on , Texa s 7 70 56 -1 80 5 (7 13 ) 62 2- 83 38 [ P HONE ] (7 13 ) 58 6- 70 53 [ F A CSIMILE ] ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC.

Amended Ce rtificate of Service 2CERTI FICATE OF SERVI CE

The un de rs ig ne d do es he reb y cert ify th at a tru e an d co rrec t co py of th e ab ov e an d fo reg oi ng in st ru m en t was se rv ed up on th e fo ll owi ng pa rti es ei th er el ect ro ni cal ly th ro ug h an el ect ro ni c fil in g m an ag er or in th e al te rn at iv e se rv ed by fax pr io r to 5: 00 p.m ., in pe rs on , by m ai l, co m m erci al de li ve ry se rv ic e, or em ai l, on Feb ru ary 9, 20 15 :

Mar io A. Mata Mar io A. Mata , PLLC 11 1 C on gr es s Av en ue , Sui te 40 0Au st in , Texa s 7 87 01 (5 12 ) 68 1- 44 61 [ P HONE ] (5 12 ) 68 2- 21 47 [ F A CSIMILE ] APPELLEE, pro se
Dav id L. Treat dl t@ ls tl aw.co m

[ E

- MAIL ] Ch ris to ph er A. Lot z cl ot z@ ls tl aw.co m

[ E

- MAIL ] Lin do w Ste ph en s Tre at , LLP The Vog ue Bu il di ng 60 0 Nav arro Str eet , Six th Flo or San Ant on io , Texa s 7 82 05 (2 10 ) 22 7- 22 00 [ P HONE ] (2 10 ) 22 7- 46 02 [ F A CSIMILE ] ATTORNEY FOR APPELLE ES REDSHIFT INVESTIGATION INC. Jo hn S. Kene fic k JKe ne fic k@ Mac do na ld Dev in .co m [ E

- MAIL ] Jo hn R. Sig et y JS ig et y @M acd on al dDe vi n.c om [ E

- MAIL ] Mac Don al d Dev in , P.C. 38 00 Ren ai ss an ce To wer 12 01 Elm Str eet Dall as , Texa s 7 52 70 -2 13 0 (2 14 ) 74 4- 33 00 [ P HONE ] (2 14 ) 74 7- 09 42 [ F A CSIMILE ] ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE BLAKE THORNTO N VANDUSEN

Karen C. Bu rg es s kb ur ge ss @r ic ha rd so nb ur ge ss .co m [ E

- MAIL ] Ri ch ard so n + Bu rg es s LLP 22 1 West 6 Str eet , Sui te 90 0

th Aus ti n, Tex as 78 70 1- 34 45 (5 12 ) 48 2- 88 08 [ P HONE ] (5 12 ) 49 9- 88 86 [ F A CSIMILE ] ATTORNEY FOR APPELLE ES CENTROPLEX AUTO MOBILE RECOVERY, INC. AND JOHN F. THOMPSON

DEBORAH C. S. RIHERD

Amended Ce rtificate of Service 3