## NO. 03—l5—00243—CV 

### IN 

# THE 

# COURT OF APPEALS THIRD DISTRICT



# OF TEXAS AUSTIN, 

# TEXAS DIVISION 

## KRISTIN



# LEE Appellant V. 

# K & N MANAGEMENT,

INC. 

## D/B/A 

## RUDY’S 

# COUNTRY

STORE 

# AND BAR—B—Q Appellee 

## On Appeal 

### from the 98”‘ Judicial

District



### Court, Travis 

### County,



### Texas 

## BRIEF 

# OF APPELLEE 

# ETHAN

F. 

# GOODWIN State 

### Bar No.2 

### 24064492 e-mail: 

### ethan.goodwin@farmersinsurance.com 

## CLARK, 

## TREVINO 

# & ASSOCIATES 1701 Directors



### Boulevard,

Suite 

### 920 Austin,



### Texas 

### 78744 Telephone: (512)



### 445-1580 Telecopier: (512)



### 383-0503 

# ATTORNEY

FOR APPELLEE ACCEPTED 03-15-00243-CV 6200252 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 7/23/2015 3:24:05 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

# TABLE OF 

# CONTENTS INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... .. i 

# STATEMENT

OF 

## THE CASE

............................................................................... .. 

### 2 

## ISSUES 

## PRESENTED ............................................................................................ .. 

### 2 

### Whether

the trial court erred 

### bygranting 

### summary judgmenton grounds

that the plant 

### growth 

### was not 

### dangerous



## when Rudy’s 

### showed that

it 

### was not, 

## when Appellant

failed to respond,



### and 

## when the Final 

## Summary

Judgment

does not state the 

### grounds



### on which

it 

### was granted? 

### Whether

there

is 

### some basis 

### upon which a fact 

### finder can assess 

### Rudy’s opportunity

to discover

the plant 

### growth 

## when Appellant

failed to 

### show 

## how long

it 

### was present

prior to Appellant’s

fall? 

## STATEIVHENT



## OF 

## FACTS

...................................................................................... .. 3 

# SUMMARY

OF 

## THE ARGUIVIENT ...................................................................... .. 

### 4 

# ARGUMENT



# AND AUTHORITIES ..................................................................... .. 5 

### The trial courtdid

noterr in granting



### summary

judgment

because 

### Appellee



### showed

the plant 

### growth

at issue



### was not 

### dangerous



### and Appellant

failed to address

the challenged

essential

element. 

### There is 

### no basis 

### uponwhich a fact finder 

### can assess 

### Rudy’s opportunity

to discover

the plant 

### growth

because

Appellant

failed

to 

### show 

## how long

it 

### was present

prior to Appellant’s fall. 

# CONCLUSION ............................................................... .; ......... ......................... .. 10 

# PRAYER ............................................................................................................... .. 10 

## CERTIFICATE



## or 

# COMPLIANCE .................................................................... .. 11 

## CERTIFICATE



## OF SERVICE .............................................................................. .. ll

# INDEX 

# OF AUTHORITIES Carr

v. 

### Brasher,



### 776 

### S.W.2d

567 (Tex. 

### 1989)

....................................................... .. 5 City 

### ofHousz‘on

V. 

### Clear



### Creek Basin 

### Auth, 589 

### S.W.2d

671 (Tex. 

### 1979)

...........

.. 9 

### Dolcefino

v. 

### Randolph,

19 

### S.W.3d

906 (Tex. 

### App. 

## ~ Houston

[14‘h Dist] 

### 2000,

pet. denied)

.................................................................................................... .. 

### 6 

## Dow Chem.

Co. v. Francis,



### 46 

### S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 

### 2001)

........................................ .. 5 

### Frost Nat’! 

## Bank

v. 

### Fernandez,



### 315 

### S.W.3d

494 (Tex. 

### 2010)

................................ .. 5 

### Keetch

v. 

### Kroger,



### 845 

### S.W.2d 262 (Tex. 

### 1992)

.................................................. .. 6, 7 

### King Ranch,

Inc.

v. 

### Chapman,

118 

### S.W.3d

742 (Tex. 

### 2003) ................................ .. 6 

### Merriman

v. 

# XTO Energy,

Inc., 

### 407 

### S.W.3d 244 (Tex. 

### 2013)

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

### Saenz

v.

### Southern

Un. 

### Gas Co., 

### 999 

### S.W.2d

490 (Tex. 

### App. 

## — E1Paso

1999, pet. denied)

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

### Wal-Mart

Stores,

Inc.

V. Gonzalez,



### 968 

### S.W.2d

934 (Tex.1998) ....................... ..7, 9 

### Wal—Mart

Stores,

Inc. V. Reece,

81 

### S.W.3d

812 (Tex. 

### 2002)

.......................... .. 6, 7, 8 

### Wal-Mart

Stores,

Inc. v. Spares,



### 186 

### S.W.3d

566, 

### 567 (Tex. 

### 2006)

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

## Wong

v. 

### Tenet



### Hosps.

Ltd., 181 

### S.W.3d

532 (Tex. 

### App. 

## — E1 

### Paso 2005, 

### no pet.)

.. 5 

# STATUTES



# AND RULES: TEX. R. 

### Crv.P.

166a(i)

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

### TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(2)(B) ................................................................................... .. 11

## NO. 03—15—00243-CV 

## IN 

# THE 

# COURT OF APPEALS THIRD DISTRICT



# OF TEXAS AUSTIN, 

# TEXAS DIVISION 

## KRISTIN



# LEE Appellant V. 

# K & N 

# MANAGEMENT,

INC. 

## D/B/A 

## RUDY’S 

# COUNTRY

STORE 

# AND BAR—B—Q Appellee 

## On Appeal 

### from the 98"‘ Judicial

District



### Court, Travis 

### County,



### Texas 

## BRIEF 

# OF APPELLEE 

# TO THE 

# HONORABLE

COURT OF APPEALS: 

# K & 

# N Management,

Inc. d/b/a 

### Rudy’s

Country

Store 

### and 

### Bar—B-Q

(“Rudy’s” or 

### “Appellee”)

respectfully

asks the Appellate



### Court

to affirm

the Final 

## Summary Judgment

of the trial court, that 

### Appellant

Kristin 

### Lee take 

### nothing



### on her claims, 

### and respectfully



### shows

the following:

# STATEMENT OF 

# THE CASE: Appellant



### brought

this suit to recover

personal

injury 

### damages.



## CR. 5 

## — 6. 

### Appellant 

### sued



### Rudy’son

premises liability 

### and negligent activity theories 

### of recovery

after she allegedly

slipped 

### and fell 

### on 

### some plant 

### growth 

### on a 

### walkway

on Rudy’s

premises. 

### C.R.

4 

### — 5. Appellee,

after 

### an adequate

time for discovery,



### filed

its First 

## Amended

Traditional 

### and



### No-Evidence



### Motion

for 

## Summary

Judgment (“Rudy’s



### Motion”)



### on all 

### of Appellant’s

claims. 

### C.R.



### 57 

## ~ 110. 

### Judge



### Rhonda Hurley,



### on April

8, 

### 2015, granted



### both 

### motions

in favor 

### ofAppe11ee



### by letter ruling. 

### C.R. 187. 

### The

Final 

## Summary

Judgment



### was entered 

### on April

10, 

### 2015. 

## CR.

188 

## — 190. 

### This

appeal

followed. 

### C.R.

191 

## ~ 198. Appellant’s only issue 

### on appeal 

### concerns



### Rudy’s constructive 

### knowledge of

theplant

### growth



### on her 

### premises liability

claim. 

### See

Appellant’s

Brief. 

## ISSUES 

## PRESENTED:

1. 

### Whether

the trial court erred 

### by granting



### summary

judgment

on grounds

that the plant 

### growth 

### was not 

### dangerous



## when Rudy’s 

### showed

that

it 

### was not, 

## when Appellant

failed to respond,



### and 

### when the Final 

## Summary

Judgment

does not state the 

### grounds



### on which

it 

### was granted?

11. 

### Whether

there

is 

### some

basis 

### upon which

a fact 

### finder can assess 

### Rudy’s opportunity

to discover

the plant 

### growth 

## when Appellant

failed to 

### show 

## how long

it 

### was present

prior to Appellant’s

fall?

# STATEMENT OF FACTS: Appellant,

after admittedly



### consuming

alcohol

at 

### Chuy’s

during

a four 

### hour dinner, 

### went to 

### Rudy’s

“to get chocolate



### pudding”

with her 

### mother, 

## Mary Lee, 

### and brother. 

### C.R.

57, 

### 69 

## — 70, 

### 84 

## — 86. 

## Mary

Lee drove, Appellant’s

brother



### occupied the 

### passenger

seat 

### next to 

## Mary Lee, 

### and Appellant

sat in the rear 

### passenger

seat 

### behind

her brother. 

### C.R.



### 57 

## — 5 8, 

### 71 

## — 72, 

### 79 

## — 80. 

## When

they arrived

at 

### Rudy’s, 

## Mary Lee did not 

### park in a designated



### parking

space;

instead,

she pulled 

### up next to a 

### Walkway

to let 

### Appellant

out. 

### C.R.

58, 71, 80.

### Appellant



### was Wearing

rubber

flip

### flops 

## when she got out 

### of the car,

### “took

a couple



### of steps 

### and then 

### was on the 

### ground.” C.R.

58, 

### 72 

## — 73, 82. 

### Appellant

could not recall 

### What caused

her to fall. 

### C.R.

58, 72, 78, 83, 

### 87 

## ~

88. Appellant,



### however,



### Was able to recall 

### opening

the 

### door of the car, 

### looking 

### Where she 

### was going to step 

### on the 

### Walkway,

and seeing

that it 

### was clear 

### of plants. 

### C.R. 58, 

### 80 

## — 81. 

### Appellant felt that she 

### could see clearly 

### Where

she 

### was stepping 

### and 

### what she 

### was stepping

on. 

### C.R.

58, 82. Appellant,

despite

the 

### aforementioned recollections,

### was not sure 

## why she fell. 

### C.R.58, 83, 

### 87 

## — 88. After

she fell, 

### Appellant

got 

### back into the car 

### without

inspecting

the 

### scene

to 

### determine

what,

if anything,



### caused

her to fall 

### and 

### Went 

## home before 

### going to the hospital. 

### C.R.

58, 

### 72 

## — 74, 

### 76 

## — 77.Appellant’s 

### mother

did 

### not see 

### where

Plaintiff



### stepped

or 

### what caused

her to

fall. 

### C.R.

58, 

### 92 

### — 93. 

### She

did not investigate

the 

### scene 

### immediately

after 

### Appellant

fell. 

### C.R.

58, 93. Plaintiff’ s 

### mother

contends

that Justin 

### House,

a family

friend 

### and 

### Rudy’s



### employee

at that time, told her 

### son the following



### day that Plaintiff

stepped onto 

### some groundcover

that 

### protruded

onto the 

### walkway

and caused

her to fall. 

### C.R. 58, 

### 92 

## ~ 93. 

### Before

that, Appellant’s



### mother

“literally



### thought

she just tripped



### over her 

## own two feet.” C.R.

58, 

### 92 

## — 93. Justin 

### House

testified

that the area 

### where Appellant

fell 

### was “well-lit”



### and that if 

### someone



### was stepping

out 

### of a car, they’d

easily 

### be able to see what,

if anything,



### was on the sidewalk. C.R. 5 8, 99. 

## He

did not dot see 

### anything



### on the 

### sidewalk

that 

### concerned



### him that 

### Appellant



### might

fall prior to her actually

falling. 

### C.R. 

### 58 

## — 59, 100. 

### While

Justin 

### House

did not actually

see 

### what Appellant

stepped 

### on that 

### caused

her to fall or actually



### go to that area after the fall, 

### he testified

that there 

### was 

### some plant 

### growth 

### on the 

### sidewalk

after she fell in 

### “one spot.” C.R.

59, 

### 100 

### ~l04, 108 

## ~ 109. 

# SUMMARY

OF 

# THE 

# ARGUMENT:

I. 

### The

plant 

### growth 

### was not 

### dangerous

as 

### a matter 

### of law. 

### Appellant



### conceded the issue 

### by failing

to 

### respond



### and present



### any evidence

otherwise. H. 

### Rudy’s

cannot 

### be charged

with constructive



### knowledge

because

Appellant failed to 

### show 

## how long the plant 

### growth

existed

prior to Appellant’s fall.

# ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES:

1. 

## The

trial 

### court

did 

### noterrin 

### granting 

## summary

judgment

because Appellee 

### showed the 

### plant 

### growth at issue 

### wasnot 

### dangerous 

### and Appellant

failed

to 

### address

the 

### challenged

essential



### element. 

### The Final 

## Summary

Judgment

in this case 

### does not state the 

### grounds



### on which

it 

### was

granted. 

### C.R. 

### 188



## ~ 190. 

### “Where

the trial court



### has granted 

### summary judgment

Without

stating

the 

### grounds

for 

### doing so

. . . 

## We must consider

all 

### grounds for 

### judgment

presented

in the 

### motion

and affirm

if 

### any has 

### meri

.” 

## Wong 1/. 

### Tenet 

### Hosps.

Ltd., 181 

### S.W.3d

532, 

### 536 (Tex. 

### App. 

### —El Paso 2005, 

### no pet.). 

### The

appellate court 

### may, in other 

### words,

affirm

the 

### summary

judgment



### on any 

### one meritorious 

### ground

alleged. 

## Dow

Chem.

Co. v. Francis,



### 46 

### S.W.3d

237, 

### 242 (Tex. 2001); 

### Carr

v. Brasher,



### 776 

### S.W.2d

567, 

### 569 (Tex. 1989). 

### Rudy’s 

### showed

in its traditional



### summary

judgment

motion

that the plant 

### growth

at issue 

### was not 

### dangerous

as 

### a matter 

### of law. 

### C.R.



### 60 

## — 61, 

### 108 

## — 109. 

### Rudy’s, in

other 

### words,disproved the facts 

### of



### one of the essential 

### elements 

### of Appellant’s



### premises

liability

claim. Ia’. 

## “A

defendant



## who conclusively

negates

at least 

### one of the essential



### elements



### of a 

### cause 

### of action . . . is

entitled

to 

### summary judgmen

.” 

### Frost

Nat’l 

### Bank

v. 

### Fernandez,



### 315 

### S.W.3d

494, 

### 508 (Tex.2010). 

### Appellant

did not contest 

### Rudy’s

entitlement

to traditional



### summary

judgment

in her 

### Response. C.R.

111 

### ~ 117. Therefore,

the trial court did not err 

### by granting



### Rudy’s traditional



### summary

judgment

motion.

### Rudy’s, in its 

### no-evidence



### summary

judgment

motion,

also 

### contended

there 

### was no evidence

that 

### any condition



### on its 

### premises



### posed an unreasonable

risk 

### of 

### harm to Appellant. 

### C.R. 62. 

### Appellant

failed

to address

the 

### no~evidence

challenge in her 

### Response. C.R.

111 

## — 117. 

### TEX.

R. CIV. P. 166a(i),

consequently,

required the trial court

to grant



### Rudy’s

no—evidence



### summary

judgment

motion

because Appellant

failed

to 

### produce



### any 

### summary

judgment

evidence

that raised 

### a 

### genuine issue 

### of material

fact. 

### Dolcefino v. 

### Randolph, 19



### S.W.3d

906, 

### 917 (Tex. 

### App. 

## — Houston

[14th Dist. 

### 2000,

pet. denied);



### Saenz

v.

### Southern

Un. 

### Gas Co., 

### 999 

### S.W.2d 490, 

### 493 (Tex. 

### App. 

## — El 

### Paso 1999,

pet. denied). 

## An

appellate

court 

### must affirm 

### a 

### no-evidence



### summary

judgment

if the records



### shows

there

is 

### no evidence



### on the 

### challenged

element. 

### Merriman V. 

# XTO Energy,

Inc., 

### 407 

### S.W.3d

244, 

### 248 (Tex. 2013);_Kz'ng



### Ranch,

Inc. v. 

### Chapman,

118 

### S.W.3d

742, 

### 751 (Tex. 2003).

### The

record

is clear;



### Appellant

presented



### no evidence



### on the 

### challenged

element. 

## CR.

111 

## — 117. Therefore,

the trial court did not err in granting



### Rudy’s

no—evidence



### summary judgment

motion. 2. 

### There is 

### no basis 

### upon which a fact finder 

### can assess 

### Rudy’s

opportunity to 

### discover

the 

### plant 

### growth

because



### Appellant

failed

to 

### show 

## how long it 

### was present

prior to 

### Appel1ant’s

fall. 

### Appellant



### must prove that the plant 

### growth

that she claims 

### caused

her to fall existed

for so 

### long that Appellants



### had a reasonable

opportunity

to discover

it. 

### See Wal—marz‘

Stores

v. 

### Reece,

81 

### S.W.3d

812, 

### 814 (Tex. 2002); 

### Keetch

V. 

### Kroger

C0,,

### 845



### S.W.2d

262, 

### 265 (Tex. 1992).

In other 

### words,

there 

### must be 

### some evidence



### of 

## how long the plant 

### growth

existed

prior to Appellant’s

fall in order to 

### charge 

### Rudy’s with constructive



### knowledge. Reece, 81 

### S.W.3d

at 816. 

### “Without



### some temporal evidence,

there

is 

### no basis 

### upon which

the fact 

### finder can reasonably

assess

the opportunity

the 

### premises



### owner had to discover

the 

### dangerous

condition.” 

### Reece, 81 

### S.W.3d

at 816; see also 

### Wal-Mart

Stores,

Inc.v. Spares,



### 186 

### S.W.3d

566, 

### 567 (Tex. 

### 2006)(evidence that 

### employee 

### was in close 

### proximity to spill legally insufficient

to support

a 

### finding

of constructive

notice 

### without



### evidence



### of 

## how or 

## when

it 

### came to 

### be 

### on the floor). Otherwise, “constructive



### knowledge”



### would be 

### imputed



### on a 

### landowner

the instant



### a 

### dangerous

condition

is created,



### whether

or not there 

### was a reasonable

opportunity

to discover

it. 

### Reece,

81 

### S.W.3d

at 815. 

## “When

circumstantial



### evidence

is relied 

### upon to 

### prove constructive

notice the 

### evidence



### must establish

that

it is 

### more likely 

### than not that the 

### dangerous

condition existed



### long 

### enough

to give the proprietor

a reasonable

opportunity

to discover

the condition.” Wal—Marz‘ Stores,

Inc.v. Gonzalez,



### 968 

### S.W.2d

936, 

### 936 (Tex.1998). Circumstantial



### evidence



### from 

### which “equally

plausible

but opposite

inferences



## may be 

### drawn”is speculative and,thus, legally insufficient to support



### a 

### finding

of constructive



### knowledge.

Id. 

### The

Texas 

### Supreme

Court

in 

### Reece

also reiterated

that a court 

## may not “refus[e]

to 

### apply the ‘time—notice

rule’ 

### simply 

### because

it 

### might beimpossible for the Plaintiff

to 

### show actual or constructive



### knowledge.” Reece, 81 

### S.W.3d

at 816. 

### There

is 

### no evidence



### of 

## how long the plant 

### growth

existed

before 

### Appellant

fell. 

### C.R.

61 

### — 62, 72, 78, 83, 

### 87 

## ~ 88. 

### Appellant

could not recall 

### what caused

her to fall. 

### C.R.

58, 72, 78, 83, 

### 87 ~88. 

### Appellant



### was not sure 

## why she fell. C.R.

58, 83, 

### 87 

## — 88. 

### Appellant

did not inspect

the 

### scene

after she fell to 

### determine

what,

if anything,



### caused

her to fall. 

### C.R.

58, 

### 72 

## — 74, 

### 76 

## — 77. Appellant,

thus, 

### could not describe

the alleged

defect

or attribute



### any characteristic

to it that 

### would

indicate that

it 

### had been there 

### long 

### enough

that

it 

### should 

### have been discovered. C.R. 61 

## — 62, 72, 78, 83, 

### 87 

## ~ 88. Appellant’s



### mbther,

likewise,

did not see 

### where Appellant

stepped

or 

### What caused

her to fall. 

### C.R.

58, 

### 92 

## ~ 93.Appellant’s



### mother,

just like Appellant,

did not investigate

the scene 

### immediately

after 

### Appellant

fell. 

## CR.

58, 93. Appellant’s 

### mother

“literally



### thought

that she just tripped



### over her 

## own two feet.” 

## CR.

58, 

### 92 

## — 93. Appel1ant’s



### mother’s

testimony,

just like Appellant’s

testimony,

failed

to 

### show 

## how long the plant 

### growth

existed

prior to Appellant’s fall. 

### C.R.

58, 

### 92 

## — 93. Justin 

### House, Appellant’s family friend 

### and 

### Rudy’s former 

### employee, testified

that prior to Appellant’s fall, 

### he did not see 

### anything



### on the 

### sidewalk

that 

### concerned

him. C.R. 

### 58



## ~ 59, 100, 182. Justin 

### House

did not actually see Appellant’s

feet hit 

### an obstacle

that 

### caused

her to fall. C.R.

100. After



### Appellantfell, Justin 

### House

claimed



### he 

### saw a plant that 

### he estimated

to 

### be ten inches

in 

### diameter



### from twenty-five

feet 

### away while 

### on the patio inside 

### Rudy’s. C.R.



### 100 

## — 101, 183. 

### However, Justin 

### House never actually



### went to the area 

### where Appellant

fell to investigate



### what caused

her to fall. 

### C.R.

101, 183. Justin



### House’s

testimony, similarly, failed to 

### show 

## how long the plant 

### growth

that 

### he concluded

caused Plaintiffs

fall existed. In order to prevail 

### on appeal,



### Appellant



### must have clearly

presented



### summary judgment

proof to establish



### a fact issue. 

### TEX.

R. CIV. P. 166a;

City 

### of 

### Houston

v. 

### Clear 

### Creek Basin 

### Auth, 589 

### S.W.2d

671, 

### 678 (Tex. 1979).



### Appellant

failed

to sustain

her 

### burden

of 

### proof because

her 

### summary

judgment

evidence



### does not 

### show 

## when the plant 

### growth 

### came to 

### be 

### on the 

### walkway

or 

## how long

it 

### was present

before 

### Appellant

slipped. C.R.

111 

## — 117. 

### Appellant

argues

that constructive



### knowledge should 

### be imputed

to 

### Rudy’s

because

plants 

### grow slowly



### implying

that 

### Rudy’s should 

### have discovered it 

### because

“the 

### hazard

at issue 

### must logically



### have existed for 

### a considerable



### time before

[Appellant]

fell.” 

### See

Appellant’s

Brief. Appel1ant’s 

### argument

is 

## flawed

and legally

insufficient

to 

### impute

constructive



### knowledge



### on Rudy’s

because

there are 

### numerous

other plausible

alternative

explanations

for the creation



### of the condition

at issue. Gonzalez,



### 968 

### S.W.2d

93 6, 

### 936 (Tex. 1998). 

## As such, 

### Appellant

failed to 

### meet her 

### burden 

### and prove the plant 

### growth

at issue existedfor

so 

### long that

it 

### should 

### have 

### been discovered



### through

the exercise



### of reasonable care. 

## CONCLUSION: Appellant

failed to 

### prove the plant 

### growth

at issue 

### was dangerous. Appellant, additionally, failed to 

### prove 

### Rudy’s

constructive



### knowledge

of the alleged

plant 

### growth

that she claims 

### caused

her to slip 

### and fall. Therefore, the appellate

court 

### shouldiaffirm

the Final 

## Summary

Judgment

in Appellee’s

favor 

### because

Appellant failed

to 

### meet her burden. 

## PRAYER: 

## WHEREFORE,

PREMISES

CONSIDERED,

Rudy’s

respectfully

asks the 

### Court

to affirm

the Final 

## Summary

Judgment

of the trial court that 

### Appellant

take 

### nothing 

### on her 

### claim against



### Rudy’s,



### and for all other relief to 

### which Rudy’s 

## may be justly

entitled,

at 

### law or in equity,

including

costs. Respectfully

submitted, 

## CLARK, 

## TREVINO 

# & ASSOCIATES 1701 Directors



### Boulevard,

Suite 

### 920 Austin,



### Texas 

### 78744 Telephone: 

### 5l2 445-1580 Telecopierz 

### 512 383~0503 

# Bf/”55&wC%/van?/WC Ethan

F. 

### Goodwirf State 

### Bar No. 

### 24064492 

## Email

address: efhan. 

### g00dwin(

(Dfarmers

ins urance. 

### com 

# ATTORNEY

FOR APPELLEE

## CERTIFICATE 

# OF 

# COMPLIANCE

I certify



### by 

## my signature



### above

that I 

### have reviewed

Brief 

### of Appellee



### and have concluded

that 

### every factual

statement

in it is 

### supported



### by the Clerk’s 

### Record and that the 

### number

of 

### words

in this 

### document, as 

### allowed



### by TEX. R. 

### APP. P. 9.4(i)(2)(B), is 2,761. 

## CERTIFICATE



# OF SERVICE

I

### hereby

certify 

### by 

## my signature



### above

that a true 

### and correct



### copy of the 

### document

has 

### been delivered



### by certified

mail, return

receipt

requested, 

### and

or facsimile



### and or e—mail

to the attorneys



### of record

as listed 

### below on the 

### 23rd 

### day of July, 

### 2015 2 » Price 

### Ainsworth 

## Law Offices



### of Price 

### Ainsworth,

P.C. 

### 3821 Juniper

Trace, 

### #310 Austin,



### Texas 

### 78738 (512) 

### 233—111l (512) 

### 472-9157

(Fax)