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 TO BRIEF OF APPELLEE, MARIO A. MATA

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 4420417 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/9/2015 1:13:31 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKTABLE OF CONTENT S

INDEX OF AUT HORITIES.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii i
ST A T E ME

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Rep ly to Is su e Nos

. I an d II: Mat a waiv ed th e is su e of th e va li di ty of th e Arb it r a ti on Pro vi si on , an d th e Arb it rat io n Pro vi si on is en fo rcea bl e ag ai ns t Mat a.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SUMM ARY OF THE ARGUMENT.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
ARGUMENT.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Rep ly to Is su e Nos

. I an d II: Mat a waiv ed th e is su e of th e va li di ty of th e Ar b it rat io n Pro vi si on , an d th e Arb it rat io n Pro vi si on is en fo rcea bl e ag ai ns t Mat a.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
CONCLUSION.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
PRAYER.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
CERTIFI CATE OF COMPLIANCE.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
CERTIFI CATE OF SERVICE.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

-ii

-INDEX O F AUTHORI TI ES

Cas es Pag e Ca le y v. Gul fs tr ea m Aero . Cor

p. , 42 8 F .3d 13 59 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Cen op le x, In c. v. Fox , 03 -1 2- 00 75 8- CV, 20 14 Tex. Ap p. LEXIS 1 98 5 (Tex . App .—Au st in Feb . 21 , 20 14 , no pe t.) (m em . op .).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Fred on ia St at e Ban k v. Gen er al Am. Life Ins

. , 88 1 S .W .2d 27 9 (Te x.1 99 4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Gen es co , Inc . v. T. Kak iu ch i & Co

. , 81 5 F .2d 84 0 (2 nd Cir . 19 87 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Hen ry v. Fin . Cas . & Su r. In c., No. 0 1- 13 -0 06 72 -CV, 20 14 Tex. Ap p. LEXIS 6 52 4 (Tex . App .—Ho us to n [1 st Dis t. J un 17 , 20 14 , no pe t.) (m em . op .).

. . . . . . . 2
In re K el lo gg Bro wn & Roo t, In c. , 16 6 S .W .3d 73 2, 7 39 (Tex . 20 05 ).

. . . . . . . . 4, 5
Med ic al Devel op men t Co rp . v. Ind us tr ia l Mo ld in g C or p. , 47 9 F .2d 34 5 (1 0t h C ir. 1 97 3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Se aw ri gh t v. Am. Gen . Fin ., Inc ., 50 7 F .3d 96 7 (6 th Cir . 20 07 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Ti nd er v. Pin ker to n S ec. , 30 5 F .3d 72 8 (7 th Cir . 20 02 ) ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Val er o Ref

in in g, In c. v. M/T

La ub er ho rn , 81 3 F .2d 60 , 64 (5t h C ir. 1 98 7)

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

Sta tute s a nd Co des Pag e 9 U.S.C. § 2.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 U.S.C. § 3.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Tex . Bus . & Co m

m . Cod e Ann . § 3 .40 1.

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

-ii i-Rule s Pag e

Tex . R. App . P. 9.4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Tex . R. App . P. 33 .1.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 2
Tex . R. App . P. 38 .1.

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

-iv

-STATE MENT OF APPELL ANT’S REPLY POI NTS TO APPELL EE’S RESPONSE App el la nt , SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC. (“ San ta nd er”) m ak es th e fo ll owi ng rep ly po in ts to th e rep ly po in ts of App el le e, MARIO A. MATA (“ Mat a”).

Rep ly to Is su e Nos

. I an d II: Mat a waiv ed th e is su e of th e va li di ty of th e Arb it rat io n Pro vi si on , an d th e Arb it rat io n P ro vi si on is en fo rcea bl e ag ai ns t Mat a. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUME NT
Mat a waiv ed th e is su e of t h e v a li di ty of th e Arb it rat io n Pro vi si on on
ap pe al be cau se he di d no t rai se th is i s s u e i n th e tri al co ur t. Fu rth erm or e, th e Arb it rat io n Pro vi si on is si gn ed by Ci ti Fi na nc ia l Aut o, Ltd .—Sa nt an de r’s

pr ed eces so r—s o th e Arb it rat io n Pro vi si on is fu ll y ex ecu te d. Als o, Mat a is es to pp ed
fro m cla im in g t ha t t he Arbi tra ti on Pro vi si on is in va li d whi le see ki ng to en fo rce t he

ot he r pr ov is io ns of t he Am en dm en t Ag reem en t.
ARGUMENT Repl y to Is su e Nos . I a nd I I: Mat a w ai ve d the i ss ue o f the v al id ity of t he Arbi tra tio n Pro vi si on , and the Arb itr at io n Pro vi si on is enfo rcea bl e a ga in st Mat a.
Mat a arg ue s th at th e Arb it rat io n Pro vi si on is no t bi nd in g be cau se it i s n ot

ex ecu te d b y S a nt an de r. Howev er, at no ti m e in th e tri al co ur t di d Mat a rai se th is

arg um en t.
Th e Te xa s Ru le s of App el la te Pro ced ur e pr ov id e th at as a pr ereq ui si te t o
pr es en ti ng a co m

pl ai nt for ap pe ll at e rev ie w, th e rec or d m us t s ho w th at : (1 ) th e co m

pl ai nt was m ad e to th e tri al co ur t by a ti m el y req ue st , ob jecti on , or m ot io n t ha t: (A) st at ed th e g ro un ds for th e ru li ng th at th e co m pl ai ni ng pa rty so ug ht fro m th e tri al co ur t wit h su ffi ci en t sp eci fic it y to m ak e th e tri al co ur t aware of th e co m pl ai nt , un le ss th e s p e c i fic

-1

-gr ou nd s were ap pa ren t fro m th e co nt ex t; an d (B) co m pl ie d wit h th e r e q u i rem en ts of th e Tex as Ru le s of Ci vi l or Cri m in al Evi de nc e or t h e Tex as Ru le s o f Ci vi l o r App el la te Pro ced ur e; an d (2 ) th e tri al co ur t: (A) ru le d on th e req ue st , ob jecti on , or m ot io n, ei th er ex pr es sl y or im

pl ic it ly; or (B) refu se d to ru le on th e req ue st , ob jecti on , or m ot io n, an d t he co m

pl ai ni ng pa rty ob

jecte d t o t he refu sa l.
Tex . R. App . P. 33 .1(a ).
In hi s res po ns e to San ta nd er’s Mo ti on to Co m pe l, Mat a ad m it te d th at th e Arb it rat io n Pro vi si on ha d be en ex ecu te d by th e pa rti es

. (CR 20 2- 21 0.) Mat a di d no t
ch al le ng e th e va li di ty of th e Arb it rat io n P ro vi si on ; ra th er, h e arg ue d th at hi s clai m s fel l wit hi n an ex cep ti on to th e Arb it rat io n Pro vi si on

. (CR 20 2- 21 0.) A pa rty fai ls to
pr es erv e a co m

pl ai nt fo r ap pe al whe n th e co m pl ai nt is no t rai se d in th e tri al co ur t.
Hen ry v. Fin

. Ca s. & Su r. In c. , No. 01 -1 3- 00 67 2- CV, 20 14 Tex

. App

. LEXIS 65 24 , at *7 (Tex . Ap p.— Hou st on [1 st Dis t. Ju n 17 , 2 01 4, no pe t.) (m em . o p.)

. W ha te ve r th e m eri ts of hi s co nt en ti on s m ay be , Mat a ha s no t sh own th at th is arg um en t was
pr es en te d t o t he tri al co ur t. It th eref or e d id no t fa ct or in to tri al co ur t's de ci si on an d

can no t be pa rt of th e ap pe ll at e co ur t’s rev ie w on ap pe al

. Se e Tex

. R. App

. P. 33 .1;
Cen op le x, In c. v. Fox , 03 -1 2- 00 75 8- CV, 20 14 Tex

. App

. LEXIS 19 85 , at *2 4- 25 n. 4 (Tex

. App .—Au st in Feb

. 21 , 20 14 , no pe t.) (m em

. op .). Thu s, Mat a ha s waiv ed th is
is su e o n a pp eal

. Fu rth erm or e, ev en if Mat a ha d pr es erv ed th is is su e fo r ap pe ll at e rev ie w, it fai ls
be cau se Mat a ci te s no le ga l au th or it y to su pp or t h i s a r g um en t th at th e Arb it rat io n
Pro vi s i o n i s u ne nf

or ceab le be cau se it is no t si gn ed by San ta nd er (o r San ta nd er’s

pr ed eces so r).

-2

-The Fed eral Arbi tra ti on Act p ro vi de s t ha t

a writ te n pr ov is io n in an y co nt ract to se tt le by arb it rat io n a co nt ro ve rs y th erea fte r ari si ng ou t of su ch co nt ract or tra ns act io n or an ag reem en t in writ in g to su bm it to arb it rat io n an ex is ti ng c o n t r o ve rs y ari si ng ou t of s u c h a co nt ract , t ran sa ct io n, or refu sa l, sh al l be va li d, irr ev oc ab le , a n d en fo rcea bl e, sa ve up on su ch gr ou nd s as ex is t at la w or in eq ui ty fo r th e rev oc at io n o f an y

co nt ract

. 9 U.S.C. 2

. Arb it rat i on ag reem en ts un de r th e Fed eral Arb it rat io n Act ne ed to be writ te n, bu t no t ne ces sa ril y si gn ed

. Val er o Refi ni ng , In c. v. M/T La ub er ho rn , 81 3 F.2 d 60 , 64 (5 th Ci r. 19 87 ) ("We no te al so th at se ct io n th ree of th e Act do es no t req ui re th at a ch art er pa rty be si gn ed in or de r to en fo rce an arb it rat io n ag reem en t co nt ai ne d wit hi n it ."); se e al

so Se aw ri gh t v. Am. Gen

. Fin
., In c ., 50 7 F

. 3 d 9 6 7 , 9 79 (6 th Ci r. 20 07 );
Gen es co , In c. v. T. Ka ki uc hi & Co

. , 81 5 F.2 d 84 0, 84 6 (2 nd Ci r. 19 87 ) ("[ W ]hil e th e [ F AA] req ui res a writ in g, it do es no t req ui re th at th e writ in g be si g n e d b y t h e
pa rti es ."); Ti nd er v. Pin ker to n Se c. , 30 5 F.3 d 72 8, 73 6 (7 th Ci r. 20 02 ) ("Al th ou gh §
3 of the FAA req ui res arb it rat io n a gr eem en ts to be writ te n, i t do es no t requ ire th em
to be si gn ed ."); Med ic al Devel op men t Co rp . v . I nd us tr ia l Mol di ng Co rp

. , 4 79 F.2 d
34 5, 34 8 (1 0t h Ci r. 19 73 ) ( " It [is ] no t ne ces sa ry th at th ere be a si m pl e in te gr at ed
writ in g o r th at a pa rty s ig n t he writ in g c on ta in in g t he arb it rat io n c la us e."); Ca le y v. Gul fs tr ea m Aero

. Co rp

. , 42 8 F.3 d 13 59 , 13 69 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ) ("We read il y co nc lu de
th at no si gn at ur e is ne ed ed to sat is fy th e FAA's writ te n a gr eem en t re qu ire m en t." ).
Thu s, th e fact th at th e Arb it rat io n Pro vi si on is pu rp or te dl y no t si gn ed by
San ta nd er or it s pr ed eces so r do es no t ren de r th e Arb it rat io n Pro vi si on un en fo rcea bl e. And , Mat a ha s fai le d to al l e g e a n y gr ou nd s th at ex is t at la w or in eq ui ty fo r th e

rev oc at io n o f th e Am en dm en t Ag reem en t o r th e Arb it rat io n P ro vi si on

. -3

-Add it io na ll y , a si gn at ur e “ m ay be m ad e (i) m an ua ll y or b y m ean s of a de vi ce

or m ach in e, an d (ii ) by t he us e o f a n y n am e, in cl ud in g a tra de or as su m ed na m e, or by a wor d, m ark , or s y m

bo l ex ecu te d o r ad op te d b y a pe rs on wit h pr es en t in te nt io n
to au th en ti cat e a writ in g.” Tex

. Bu s. & Co m m

. Co de Ann

. § 3.4 01

. The Arb it rat io n
P r o v i s io n co nt ai ns th e na m e of “ Ci ti Fi na nc ia l Aut o, Ltd .” at th e bo tt om of t h e do cu m en t, whi ch co ns ti tu te s th e si gn at ur e of Ci ti Fi na nc i a l Aut o, Ltd , San ta nd er’s

pr ed eces so r. (CR 8 0)

. The Arbi tra ti on Pro vi si on was p art of a n a m en dm en t o f th e ret ai l i ns ta ll m en t

co nt ract (“ Am en dm en t Agr eem en t” ) to red uc e th e in te res t rat e, red uc e th e am ou nt of
th e m on th ly pa y m en ts du e, an d to ex te nd th e m at ur it y da te of th e ret ai l in st al lm en t

co nt ract

. (CR 68 -7 0, 75 -8 0) The Arb it rat io n Pro vi si on was pa rt of th e co ns id erat io n
to am en d th e te rm s of th e co nt ract

. (CR 68 -7 0, 75 -8 0)

. Mat a do es no t arg ue th at th e
ot he r te rm s of th e Am en dm en t Agr eem en t are in va li d du e to th e pu rp or te d la ck of a si gn at ur e by San ta nd er or it s pr ed eces s o r

. R at he r, Mat a cl ai m s th at he fu ll y
pe rfo rm ed un de r th e te rm s of th e am en de d te rm s o f t h e co nt ract an d ha s as se rte d a

cau se of act io n fo r br each o f co nt ract

. (CR 5- 6.) Eve n a no ns ig na to ry pl ai nt iff

se ek in g th e be ne fit s of a co nt ract is es to pp ed fro m si m ul ta ne ou sl y at te m

pt in g to av oi d
th e co nt ract 's bu rd en s, su ch as th e ob li ga ti on to arb it rat e di sp ut es

. Se e In re Kel lo gg Bro wn & Roo t, I

n c

. , 1 6 6 S.W .3d 73 2, 73 9 (Tex

. 20 05 ) (em ph as is ad de d)

. A pa rty

m ay be es to pp ed fro m as se rti ng th at th e la ck of hi s si gn at ur e pr ecl ud es en fo rcem en t
of th e co nt ract 's arb it rat io n cl au se w h e n h e ha s co ns is te nt ly m ai nt ai ne d th at ot he r
pr ov is io ns of t he same con tra ct sh ou ld be en fo rced to be ne fit hi m

. Id

.

-4

-Si m il arl y , Mat a, as a si gn at or y to th e Arb it rat io n P ro vi si on , is es to pp ed fro m

av oi di ng th e en fo rcem en t of th e arb it rat io n cl au se whe n he ha s fil ed su it as se rti ng a

cau se of act io n of br each of th e ret ai l in st al lm en t co nt ract (as am en de d b y th e Am en dm en t Ag reem en t co nt ai ni ng th e Arb it rat io n P ro vi si on ). Cf ., id

. Mat a al so arg ue s th at th e Tex as Fi na nc e Co de req ui res co nf irmati o n o f an y

am en dm en t of a ret ai l i ns ta ll m en t co nt ract to be de li ve red to th e bu y er or m ai le d to
th e bu y er’s m os t rece nt ad dr es s, an d t ha t he rece iv ed no su ch co nf irmatio n. Mat a fai ls to ci te to an y po rti on of th e reco rd th at su pp or ts hi s as se rti on th at he rece iv ed no

su ch co nf irmatio n, ha s no t ad eq ua te ly br ie f e d t h i s i ss ue , an d th us ha s waiv ed th is

arg um en t on ap pe al

. Tex

. R. App

. P. 38 .1(i ); se e Fred on ia St at e Ban k v. Gen er al Am.
Li fe I n s. , 8 81 S.W .2d 27 9, 28 3 (Tex .19 94 ) (an ap pe ll ee’s po in t m ay be waiv ed du e
to in ad eq ua te bri efi ng ).
Fu rth erm or e, by arg u i n g th at he di d no t rece iv e co nf irmatio n of th e Am en dm en t Agr eem en t, on ce ag ai n, as se t fo rth ab ov e, M a t a is at te m pt in g to
si m ul ta ne ou sl y cl ai m th e be ne fit s o f th e Am en dm en t Agr eem en t bu t di sc la im th e Arb it rat io n Pro vi si on co n t a i n e d in th e Am en dm en t Agr eem en t. Mat a is es to pp ed
fro m av oi di ng th e en fo rcem en t of th e Arb it rat io n Pro vi si on

. Cf

. Kel lo gg , 16 6 S.W .3d

at 73 9 (Te x. 2 00 5)

.

-5

-CONCLUSI ON

Mat a waiv ed th e is su e of th e va li di ty of th e Arb it rat io n Pro vi si o n on ap pe al
be cau se he di d no t rai se th is is s u e in th e tri al co ur t. Fu rth erm or e, th e Arb it rat io n
Pro vi si o n is si gn ed by Ci ti Fi na nc ia l Aut o, Ltd .—Sa nt an de r’s pr ed eces so r—s o th e Arb it rat io n Pro vi si on i s fu ll y ex ecu te d. Als o, Mat a is es to pp ed fro m cl ai m in g th at
th e Arb it rat io n Prov is io n is in va li d whi le se ek in g to en fo rce th e ot he r pr ov is io ns of
th e Am en dm en t Ag reem en t.

PRAYER
W HEREFORE, PREMI S ES CONSIDERED, App el la nt , SANTANDER
CONSUMER USA, I NC., p rays t h a t t h i s Co ur t gr an t or al arg um en t on th is ap pe al ,

an d th erea fte r, rev ers e th e tri al co ur t’s ord er de nyin g San ta nd er’s m ot io n to co m pe l
arb it 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, e n t e 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 S a n t a n de r Co 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
-6

-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.

CERTI FICATE OF COMPLI ANCE
I cert ify th at th is do cu m en t was pr od u c e d on a co m pu te r us in g Co rel W or dP erfe ct X5 an d co nt ai ns 1,4 33 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

-7-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

ser vi ce, o r em ai l, o n M arch 9, 2 01 5:

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 ] ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE S 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

-8-