CAUSE NO. 04-15-00219 — CV CAUSE NO. 04-15-00218 — CV 

DAVID GOAD, 

Appellant 

V. 

JAMIE OSBORNE, 

Appellee 

CONSOLIDATED WITH 

DAVID GOAD, 

Appellant 

V. 

ERIC STREY 

Appellee 

Appealed from the County Court, Guadalupe County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2014-CV-0393 

Trial Cour No. 20l4—CV-0392 

Robin V. Dwyer, Judge Presiding 

APPELLEES’ OPPOSITION TO APPELLANT’S SECOND REQUEST FOR MORE TIME

ACCEPTED

04-15-00219-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

9/21/2015 4:39:33 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 09/21/2015 4:39:33 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 09/21/2015 4:39:33 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

COMES NOW Appellees Jamie Osborne and Eric Strey and files this their 

Opposition to Appellant’s Second Request for More Time and would respectfully 

show unto this Court as follows: 

1. Relief Reg uested 

On September 14, 2015, Appellant, David Goad filed his Second Request 

for More Time with this Court. Mr. Goad’s Motion claims a medical condition he 

has lived with for six years has left him physically unable to draft appellate briefs 

required of him in this Court, Texas Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit Court of 

Appeals. Mr. Goad concludes his Request by asking this Court for an indefinite 

extension of time for Mr. Goad to file his brief. Mr. Goad’s request comes just 

four days prior to the September 18, 2015 deadline this Court imposed on him to 

file his Appellate brief. Mr. Goad’s request should in all things be DENIED and 

his appeal DISMISSED for Want of Prosecution. 

II. Argument & Authorities 

Mr. Goad’s Request is not accompanied by any competent evidence. The 

documents attached to Mr. Goad’s Request are either irrelevant, in the case of 

Exhibit A or hearsay, exhibits B, C, and D, pursuant to the Texas Rules of 

Evidence. Mr. Goad attached an article that is not verified as a business record and 

Page 2 of 6
provides the Court with no relevant information as to why Mr. Goad has failed to 

comply with the order. He also attached three letters allegedly from his own 

treating physicians, the latest of which is dated April 20, 2015, from Dr. Toledo. 

None of the three letters say anything about Mr. Goad not being able to work 

during the relevant time period. In fact, since Exhibit B was reportedly drafted by 

Dr. Horton on August 16, 2010, Mr. Goad has prosecuted three lawsuits in the 

United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, two of which he 

appealed to the United States Appellate Court for the Fifih Circuitl. In addition he 

has appealed to this Court no less than seven (7) times in that same spanz, 

including the present consolidated appeal. He has also appealed to sister courts, the 

Third Court of Appeals3 and the Fourteenth Court of Appeals4 during that time 

period. He has even appealed one of his cases to the Texas Supreme Cou1t.5 

1 1. 5:2011-cv-01056 Goad, et. al. v. Guadalupe County, et. al. [Appealed] 

2. 522013-cv-00063 Goad v. Doe, et; al. 

3. 5:2014-cv-00813 Goad v. Camareno, et, al. [Appealed] 

2 1. 08-10-00216 David Goad v. ZuehlAirport Flying Community 0wnersAssociation; 

2. 04-11-00293-CV David Goad v. Zuehl/lirport Flying Community 0wnersAssociation; 

3. 04-11-00894 In re David Goad, Relator; 

4. 04~14-00497-CV David C. Goad v. The County of Guadalupe, Texas; 

5.04-~14-00501In re David Goad; 

6. 04-14-00637 In re David Goad; 

7. 04-15-00218 / 04-15-00219 David Goad v.]amie Osborne / David Goad v. Eric Strey. 

3 03-12-00170-CV In re David Goad 

4 14-13-00861-CV David Goad v. Hancock Bankf/k/a Peoples First Community Bank 

5 15-0662 David Goad v. Hancock Bankf/k/a Peoples First Community Bank 

Page 3 of 6
Interestingly, Mr. Goad recently requested an extension of time to file his brief in 

his Texas Supreme Court case. He cited this Court’s August 12, order and its 

September 18, 2015 deadline as a basis for the extension he requested from the 

Texas Supreme Court. A Copy of Mr. Goad’s Extension Request, file stamped 

August 31, 2015 in Cause No. 15-0662 is attached hereto as Exhibit A for the 

Court’s convenience. 

If Mr. Goad were truly unable to complete more than ten pages of briefing in 

a month’s time as he claims, his Request for Additional time, should have been 

presented to this Court immediately upon the Court’s issuance of its August 12, 

2015 Order, not thirty (30) days later. 

Appellees are fully aware of the Court’s great discretion over its docket and 

power to schedule matters before it. Appellees’ intention is voice their objection to 

Appellant’s Request and alert the Court to Mr. Goad’s long Appellate history, even 

during his alleged illness. Mr. Goad has had ample time to prosecute this appeal 

and drafi his Appellate brief. Yet he has chosen not to so, rather his apparent 

intention is to dictate to this Court when he will submit his brief, while using this 

Court’s orders to delay other appeals he is prosecuting. Mr. Goad intends to file 

his do so when it is convenient for him, regardless of the Rules of Appellate 

Procedure or the Orders of this Court. 

Page 4 of 6
If the Court chooses to allow Mr. Goad an additional extension, Appellees 

respectfully request the Court admonish Mr. Goad to retain counsel and that no 

additional extensions will be given as a result of Mr. Goad’s personal inability to 

file his Appellate Brief. 

III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellees respectfully request 

this Honorable Fourth Court of Appeals DENY Appellant’s Request and DISMISS 

his appeal for Want of Prosecution. 

Page 5 of 6
Respectfully Submitted, 

Chunn, Price & Harris 

16500 San Pedro Ave., Suite 410 

San Antonio, TX 78232 

Telephone (210) 343.5000 

Telecopier (210) 525.0960 

/s/ Jeremy R. Sloan 

Jeremy Sloan 

State Bar No. 24054995 

Email: jsloangazgphattorneys.com 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was 

served on: 

David Goad 

l 154 Rivertree Dr. 

New Braunfels, TX 78130 

/s/ Jeremy R. Sloan 

Jeremy Sloan 

Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT A
HLIZU 

E COURT 

‘N sU‘(::E1héxAs 

Au(531'lli'l5 M1 5

_ 

CISIK ' ' -

I BLAKE HAW‘ DeP“‘V ‘ 

- V 

By 1) § A IN THE 

Petitioner, § 

v. § 

§ SUPREME COURT 

HAN(.‘()Cl( BANK F/K/A I’E()l’l,ES § FIRST COMMUNITY BANK, § 

Respondent. § OF TEXAS 

I’ETl'I'IONER'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR REVIEW 

I. This motion is brought under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedures 53.7 (f) Extension of 

Time to tile petition for review. Said rule provides authority to the Texas Supreme Court to grant 

additional time for Petitioner to tile his petition for review. 

2. Petitioner is David Goad. in I’/'0/aria /’eI'.s'una (pro se): respondent is Hancock Bank. with 

counsel. 

3. The Fourteenth Court oi‘/\ppea|s issued its Memorandum Opinion in Goad v. Hancock. 

NO. l4—l3~t)t)8(i1—(‘V. on April 6. 2015. 

4. Petitioner's motion for "rehezu'ing and en banc consideration" was denied on July 14. 2015. 

5. Petitioner's petition for review is due in the Supreme Court on August 28. 20l 5. forty-five 

days from the July 14. denial. 

6. Petitioner requests an additional 60 days to file the petition for review. extending the time 

until October 27. 2015. No prior requests have been made to extend time to tile the petition for 

review. 

7. /\Ll(IIIi()lI£Ii time is needed for the following reasons: 

21. Petitioner has been disabled For more than 7 years. The disability stems from prior spinal 

injuries. at stroke with subsequent heart surgery. and posttraumatic stress disorder. These disabilities 

are \\ ell defined under the Ameriez1n‘s with Disability Act. Normally. the petitioner lags behind or
takes about twice the normal amount ol‘timc to prepare pleadings. however. the last few months 

have been very difticult and has further limited the petitioner's workload. 

b. Petitioner is working on multiple briefs and one to the U.S. Supreme Court. One example 

is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A." 

Conclusion 

8. Given petitioner's health issues and work backlog. it is impossible for him to submit a 

meaningful petition for review within the normal time limitations. 

Declaration 

9. 1. David Goad. if requested to do so. could and would competently testify under oath. 

based upon my personal knowledge. to the matters stated herein: 

The information provided in the PE'l‘lTIONER'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR REVIEW and is true. 

I freely swear under the penalty of perjury under the Laws ofthe United States of 

America that my above statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 

Request 

it). Petitioner requests the Supreme Court grant 60 additional days to lile his petition for 

review. 

Respectfully submitted. 

David Goad, pro se
CERTIFICATE!) OF SERVICE 

I certify under the penalty of perjury that I sent a copy of the PETITIONER'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE I’E'l‘lTI()N FOR REVIEW to each ofthose listed below on August 

2 . 20l S. The method ofdelivery is noted below each name. When sent by "U.S. Mail," the document(s) 

were placed into an envelope postage prepaid and deposited into a box which is used solely for the 

collection ofmail by the US. postal service. 

Craig R. Denum 

l I757 Katy Freeway.. Ste l()l() 

Houston. Texas 77079-1732 

U.S. Mail 

David Goad
jfaurtb Glluurt at Qppeals 

5am $§Intom'o, tlliexas 

August 12, 2015 

No. 04-15-00218-CV 

David GOAD, 

Appellant 

V. 

Eric STREY and Does 1 through l0, 

Appellees 

No. 04~15-00219-CV 

David GOAD, 

Appellant 

V. 

Jamie OSBORNE 

Appellee 

From the County Court, Guadalupe County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2014-CV-0392 and 2014-CV-0393 

Honorable Robin V. Dwyer, Judge Presiding 

ORDER 

The brief of appellant David Goad in these consolidated appeals was due July 20, 2015. 

Neither the brief nor a motion for extension of time was filed. On July 23, 2015, we ordered 

Goad to file, not later than August 3, 2015, his appel1ant’s brief and a written response 

reasonably explaining his failure to timely file the brief. On August 6, the court received Goad’s 

motion for extension of time to file his brief and a request for a copy of the record. 

We grant the motion. We order the Clerk of this court to send a copy of the appellate 

record to appellant on CD Rom. Appellant is advised that if he desires a supplemental clerk’s 

record, he must request the supplement in writing from the trial court clerk and file a copy of the 

request in this court. Any such request will not be grounds for extending the due date for 

appellant’s brief. 2‘/:(¢:'4"
We order appellant's brief due September 18, 2015 (60 days after the original due date). 

No further extensions will be granted absent a motion showing of extraordinary circumstances. 

If the brief or a motion is not electronically filed or received in this court by September 18, 2015, 

the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. The mailbox rule will not apply. 

%/rwnmll. Luz Eleh/a D. Chapa, Justice I 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 12th day of August, 2015. 

‘\‘“||iI|UHI][, \ F ”I/ 

§‘\"s’é:$.._,O.o--¢~v_A:.,'fD<:'?{(‘,.‘ ~ __. 

xs . ‘"57 €45. 59‘ o O .

- $0 V 9) % Keith B. Hottle' 

§ * * gg Clerk of Court 

'‘ Cl 

2'. :.=- -— 1; ‘wk I $e§

"""r7 ' 

r= ‘ ~‘I~‘«‘§ 

’ 

"’«‘IInmu\\\‘\\“‘
David Goad 

August 25. 2015 

Mr. Blake A. l-lawthorne. (flerk 

Supreme Court oI'Tcxas 

PO. Box 12248 

Austin. Texas 7871 I 

Re: Petition for Review in 

Goad v. Hancock 

Hello Mr. Hawthorne. 

Please lile this new issue upon receipt. A declaration to proceed In Fomm Pc/uperis is also provided for your consideration. If any question arise please contact me. 

591? David Goad