No. 03-14-00782-CV

In The Court Of Appeals

For The Third Court Of Appeals 

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. 

ON APPEAL FROM THE 353RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS 

TRIAL COURT 

CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-13-000677

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND SUPPLEMENT BRIEF 

OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE MARIO A. MATA 

E.JASON BILLICK, SBN: 24078230

WILLIAM B. GAMMON, SBN: 07611280

 GAMMON LAW OFFICE, PLLC

 1201 Spyglass Drive, Ste. 100

 Austin, Texas 78746

 Phone: (512) 472-8909

 Fax: (888) 545-4279 

 firm@gammonlawoffice.com

ACCEPTED

03-14-00782-CV

6882539

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

9/11/2015 10:50:29 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 9/11/2015 10:50:29 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
1

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THIS COURT:

E. Jason Billick and William B. Gammon of the GAMMON LAW OFFICE, 

attorneys of record for Appellee Mario A. Mata, file this Motion for Leave to 

Amend and Supplement Brief of Plaintiff-Appellee Mario A. Mata pursuant to 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.7. Appellee Mario A. Mata respectfully asks 

this Court leave to amend and supplement his brief on or before Tuesday, 

September 15, 2015, at 5:00 PM. In support, Appellee states as follows:

RELEVANT FACTS

1. On February 17, 2015, Appellee Mario A. Mata filed his Brief of PlaintiffAppellee, Pro Se. 

2. On March 9, 2015, Appellant Santander Consumer USA, Inc. filed its 

Reply Brief of Appellant to Brief of Appellee, Mario A. Mata. To date, 

there have been no other brief submissions.

3. On April 10, 2015, the Gammon Law Office, PLLC, filed its appearance in 

this Court on behalf of Appellee Mario A. Mata. 

4. On August 26, 2015, this Court set this matter for oral argument on 

September 23, 2015 at 1:30 PM. 

ARGUMENT

5. This Court has held that "[a] brief may be amended or supplemented 

whenever justice requires, on whatever reasonable terms the court may 
2

prescribe." Majeed v. Hussain, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 8477, *26 (Tex. 

App. Austin Oct. 22, 2010) (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 38.7). Generally, "a 

party must seek leave of court to file an amended or supplemental brief, 

and the appellate court has some discretion in deciding whether to allow 

the filing." Standard Fruit & Vegetable Co. v. Johnson, 985 S.W.2d 62, 65 

(Tex. 1998).

6. Here, Appellee Mario A. Mata’s counsel did not file an appearance until 

after Maria A. Mata filed his brief pro se. Counsel has conducted an indepth evaluation of the appeal in anticipation of the September 23, 2015, 

oral argument. Counsel has determined Mario A. Mata’s brief must be 

amended and supplemented so that it may accurately "acquaint the court 

with the issues in [this] case and...present [an] argument that will enable 

the court to decide the case.” TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9. 

7. Specifically, counsel for Appellee Mario A. Mata would like to raise an 

argument with regard to the issue of whether there is a valid agreement to 

arbitrate. Here, Plaintiff-Appellee has brought suit against Appellant, in 

relevant part, for breach-of-contract. The Court of Appeals of Texas for the 

Eighth District has held:

Because arbitration is a creature of contract, we apply standard 

contract principles to determine the enforceability of arbitration 

agreements. See Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg., 388 

U.S. 395, 404 n.12, 87 S. Ct. 1801, 1806 n.12, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1270 
3

(1967); Ysleta Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Godinez, 998 S.W.2d 700, 702 

(Tex. App.--El Paso 1999, no pet.). "A fundamental principle of 

contract law is that when one party to a contract commits a material 

breach of that contract, the other party is discharged or excused from 

any obligation to perform." Hernandez v. Gulf Group Lloyds, 875 

S.W.2d 691, 692, 37 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 731 (Tex. 1994). Thus, because 

material breach is a ground for revoking a contract, it should be a 

ground for revoking an arbitration agreement.

Tri-Star Petroleum Co. v. Tipperary Corp., 107 S.W.3d 607, 612-613

(Tex. App. El Paso 2003, pet. denied) (emphasis added).

8. Appellant has brought this appeal with unclean hands. It attempts to rely 

upon an agreement it breached several years ago. Therefore, Appellee 

Mario A. Mata should, at the very least, be afforded the opportunity to 

amend and supplement his brief to adequately present this argument. 

9. Appellant is correct that the question of whether an enforceable agreement 

to arbitrate exists is a legal question that the appellate court reviews de 

novo. Rachal v. Reitz, 403 S.W.3d 840, 843 (Tex. 2013). Therefore, there 

are some legal arguments Appellee Mario A. Mata may raise for the first 

time on this appeal. 

10. Appellee Mario A. Mata respectfully asks this Court leave to amend and 

supplement its brief. Counsel for Appellee Mario A. Mata believes a 

supplemental and amended brief can be filed no later than Tuesday, 

September 15, 2015, at 5:00 PM.
4

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ E. Jason Billick

E. JASON BILLICK, SBN: 24078230

WILLIAM B. GAMMON, SBN: 07611280

GAMMON LAW OFFICE, PLLC

1201 Spyglass Drive, Ste. 100

Austin, Texas 78746

Phone: (512) 472-8909

Fax: (888) 545-4279 

firm@gammonlawoffice.com

Counsel for Appellee Mario A. Mata
5

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 10.1(a)(5), I hereby certify 

that our office has conferred, or made a reasonable attempt to confer, with all 

other parties which are listed below about the merits of this motion on the 10th

day of September, 2015.

David L. Treat, SBN: 20205300

LINDOW STEPHENS TREAT, LLP

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE RED SHIFT

Method of contact: Email and telephone

Results: Attorney for Appellee advised that they oppose this motion.

Karen C. Burgess, SBN: 00796276

RICHARDSON + BURGESS, LLP

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES CENTROPLEX AUTOMOBILE RECOVERY, INC. AND 

JOHN F. THOMPSON

Method of contact: Email and telephone

Results: Attorney for Appellee advised that they oppose this motion. 

John S. Kenefick, SBN: 24006294

MACDONALD DEVIN, P.C

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE BLAKE THORNTON VANDUSEN

Method of contact: Email and telephone

Results: Attorney for Appellee advised that they do not oppose this motion. 

Vicki W. Hart, SBN: 24046037

DEVIN, NAYLOR & TURBYFILL, PLLC

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC.

Method of contact: Telephone

Results: Attorney for Appellant advised that they oppose this motion. 

/s/ E. Jason Billick

E. Jason Billick
6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been 

served by Pro-Doc e-service or facsimile on this the 11th day of September 2015:

Christopher A. Lotz Karen C. Burgess

David L. Treat RICHARDSON + BURGESS, LLP

LINDOW STEPHENS TREAT, LLP 221 West 6th Street, Suite 900

The Vogue Building Austin, Texas 78701

600 Navarro Street, Sixth Floor Tel: (512) 482-8808

San Antonio, Texas 78205 Fax: (512) 499-8886

Tel: (210) 227-2200 kburgess@richardsonburgess.com

Fax: (210) 227-4602 Attorney for Appellees Centroplex

clotz@1stlaw.com Automobile Recovery, Inc. and

dlt@1stlaw.com John F. Thompson

Attorneys for Appellee Red Shift 

Investigation, Inc.

John S. Kenefick Donald L. Turbyfill

John R. Sigety Deborah C. S. Riherd

MACDONALD DEVIN, P.C. Vicki W. Hart

3800 Renaissance Tower DEVIN, NAYLOR & TURBYFILL,

1201 Elm Street PLLC

Dallas, Texas 75270 4801 Woodway, Suite 420-West

Tel: (214) 744-3300 Houston, Texas 77056

Fax: (214) 747-0942 Tel: (713) 622-8338

jkeneifick@macdonalddevin.com Fax: (713) 586-7053

jsigety@macdonalddevin.com dturbyfil@dntlaw.com

Attorneys for Appellee driherd@dntlaw.com

Blake Thornton Vandusen vhart@dntlaw.com

Attorneys for Appellant Santander 

Consumer USA, Inc.

/s/ E. Jason Billick

E. Jason Billick