CASE NO. 13-14-00617-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

THIRTEENTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS

RONALD G. HOLE,

Appellant

v.

WILLIAM L. HUBBARD,

Appellee

APPEAL FROM CAUSE NUMBER 2013DCV-4177-C

94 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS th

JUDGE BOBBY GALVAN, PRESIDING

APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF

Ronald G. Hole

State Bar No. 09834200

HOLE & ALVAREZ, L.L.P.

P. O. Box 720547

McAllen, Texas 78504-0547

Telephone: (956) 631-2891

Telecopier: (956) 631-2415

E-Mail: Mail@HoleAlvarez.com

RONALD G. HOLE, Pro Se

ORAL ARGUMENT DENIED April 21, 2015 ACCEPTED

13-14-00617-CV

THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS

4/21/2015 9:45:45 PM

DORIAN RAMIREZ

CLERKCASE NO. 13-14- 0061 7-CV

IN THE COURT OF APP EALS FOR T HE

TH IRT EEN TH SU PRE ME JUD ICIAL D ISTR ICT OF T EXAS

AT C ORP US CH RIST I, T EXAS

R ON AL D G . H OL E,

A p p e l l a n t

v

.

W IL LI AM L. HUBBA RD,

A p p e l l e e

APPEA L F ROM C AUS E N UM BER 20 13D CV- 4177 -C

94 JUD ICIAL D ISTR ICT C OUR T, NU ECE S C OUN TY , T EXAS th

JUDG E BOB BY GALVAN, PRESI DING

A PPEL LA NT ’S R EPL Y B RIEF

Ro nal d G. Ho le

State Bar No . 098 3420 0

HOL E & ALVA REZ , L.L.P.

P. O. Box

72 0547

McAl len , T ex as 7 8504 -05 47

Te lep hone : (95 6) 631- 2891

Te lecop ier : (95 6) 631- 2415

E-M ail : M a i l @H o l e A l v a r e z.com

R ON AL D G . H OL E, Pro Se

ORA L A RGU M ENT D ENIE DTA BLE OF CONTENTS

T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s

. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . i i

I n d e x o f A u t h o r i t i e s

. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . iii

R e p l y

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

A. Di sagre eme nts W ith Statem ent of the Case an d S tatem ent

o f F a c t s

. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 2

B. Br i ef

R es po ns e to A pp el l ee ’ s F i rs t R ep l y P oi nt

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

C

. Br i ef

R es po ns e to A pp el l ee ’ s S ec on d R ep l y P oi nt

. . . . . . . . . . 4

P r a y e r

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

C e r t i f i c a t e o f

C o m p l i a n c e

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

C e r t i f i c a t e o f

S e r v i c e

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

-ii

-IND EX O F A UT HOR ITIES

Ca ses

C ra i n v. Sm i th

, 22 S.W .3d 5 8

(T ex .A pp .– C or pu s C hr i sti 2 00 0, n o pe t.)

. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 4, 5

Ja mes v. Brown , 637 S.W .2d 9 14 (T ex . 198 2).

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

Kris hnan v. Law Off

ic es of Pres to n Henric hs on, P.C. , 83 S.W .3d 2 95

(T ex .App.–C orp us C hri sti 20 02, p et. de nie d).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6

Ru ssell v. Cl

ark , 620 S.W .2d 8 65

(T ex . App .–Da lla s 198 1, w rit ref’d n.r .e.).

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

-ii i-AP PE L L ANT’ S REPL Y B RI EF

- P AGE 1 OF 8 CASE NO. 13-14- 0061 7-CV

IN THE COURT OF APP EALS FOR T HE

TH IRT EEN TH SU PRE ME JUD ICIAL D ISTR ICT OF T EXAS

AT C ORP US CH RIST I, T EXAS

RON ALD G. H OLE

A p p e l l a n t

v

.

W IL LI AM L. HUBBA RD

A p p e l l e e

APPEA L F ROM C AUS E N UM BER 20 13D CV- 4177 -C

94 JUD ICIAL D ISTR ICT C OUR T, NU ECE S C OUN TY , T EXAS th

JUDG E BOB BY GALVAN, PRESI DING

A PPEL LA NT ’S R EPL Y B RIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTI CES OF SAI D COURT:

COM ES N OW R ONA LD G. H OLE, Appe lla nt i n the ab ov e-e ntitle d a nd

num ber ed cause, a nd file s this h is re ply br ie f

, an d for

such r epl y

w oul d

re sp ec tfu l l y

sh ow u nt o th i s H on or ab l e C ou rt a s f ol l ow s:AP PE L L ANT’ S REPL Y B RI EF

- P AGE 2 OF 8 I.

REPLY

Pursuant t o Ru le 38.3 of the T ex as R ule s of A ppel late Proced ure

,

Appe lla nt fil es this his r epl y br ief, a ddr essing matte rs conta ine d w ithi n

Ap pe l l ee ’ s B ri ef

.

A

. Disa gree men ts With Stat emen t of th e Ca se an d Stat emen t o f F act s

Appe lla nt di sagre es w ith the S tatem ent o f the Ca se conta ine d w ithi n

Appe lle e’s Brie f, w her ein he ass erts that the W ansey law suit w as “a la w suit

file d b y Ap pel lan t”, as such statem ent i s false. (C .R. p . 137 ) N otw ithstand ing

the fact that Appe lle e know s of this fact, and notw ithstand ing the fa ct that th e

actual petiti on is in clude d i n the C ler k’s R ecord , and such d ocum ent m akes

it b latan tly

clea r th at the pl eadi ng at i s s ue w as fil ed by I. C ecili a Ga rza,

Appe lle e continu es to mi srepr esent to this Co urt that the unde rsign ed fil ed

su ch su i t.

Likew ise, A ppel lee ’s Sta te me nt o f F acts is ob jectio nabl e. W hil e a

Statem ent o f F acts is r equi red to state conci sely a nd w ithou t ar gum ent th e

fa cts p er

ti ne nt to th e i ssu es r ai se d, su pp or te d by r ec or d ref er en ce s,

Appe lle e’s “ Statem ent o f F acts” is litt le m or e than a ra nt. T her e a re

absol utely

no re cord refer ences con taine d w ithi n A ppel lee ’s “Stateme nt ofAP PE L L ANT’ S REPL Y B RI EF

- P AGE 3 OF 8

Fa cts” to sup por t hi s first p ara gra ph. Appe lla nt wou ld s t ate, w ithou t

arg ume nt, tha t such fi rst pa rag rap h i s incor rect a nd false.

B. Bri ef Response to A ppell ee’ s Fir st Reply Point

Th ere ar e thr ee pro ble ms w ith Appe lle e’s p ositio n t hat th e l ibe lou s

stateme nt m ade by

Ap pel lee concer nin g A ppellan t w as tru e. Fo r

conv eni ence, the l ibe lou s stateme nt w as as follo w s: “H ow ev er, as show n b y

th e Su pr em e C ou rt o pi ni on , R on h as no av er si on to fi l i ng a su i t w i th ou t m er i t.”

(C .R. p p. 13 1-3 2; Ap p. 2) F irst, a s poi nted out abov e, Appel lan t (Ron) did n ot

file the s uit Mr. Hu bbar d r efers to i n h is l etter, the W ansey la w suit. (C .R. p

.

186) S econd , the opi nio n o f the Supr eme C our t concer nin g such law suit

do es n ot , a ny

w he re i n i ts v er bi ag e, st at e th at A ppel l an t h ad n o av er si on to

fili ng a sui t w ithou t me rit. (C .R. p p. 13 8-3 9; Ap p. 3)

Fi nal ly , as poi nted out i n A ppel lan t’s Br ief, th e sui t aga inst M r. W ansey

had mer it. Ho w ev er, ev en more d etrim ental to Appe lle e’s l im ited

i nt er pr et at i on o f h i s sta te m en t, i s t he co m m on u sa ge o f t he w or d “a v er si on .”

A cla im that some one has “ no av ersio n” to f il in g a meri tless case certai nly

conv ey s the im pr es sion that such per son h as, as a fact, fil ed cases w ithou t

mer it o n m ore than on e o cc as ion. T her efore , App ell ee’ s stateme nt tha t

Ap p e l l a n t h a d n o a v e r si o n t o f i l i n g l a w su i t s w i t h o u t m e r i t w a s t e x t b o okAP PE L L ANT’ S REPL Y B RI EF

- P AGE 4 OF 8

defam ation per

se. A ppel lan t’s summ ary ju dgm ent e v ide nce e stabli shed that

t h e a f f i r m a t i v e d e fe ns es a l l eg ed b y A pp el l ee , i nc l ud i ng th e af fi rm at i v e de fe ns e

of “ truth,” w ere com ple tely w ithou t supp or t i n the sum mar y ju dgm ent

ev ide nce, a nd a sum ma ry j ud gment sho uld ha v e b een gra nted as to all of

Ap pe l l ee ’ s a ffi rm at i v e de fe ns es

.

C. Bri ef Response to A ppell ee’ s Second Reply Point

I n h i s re s p o n s e t o A p p e l l a n t ’ s I s s u e N o

. 1

, A p p e l l e e o f f e r s n o t h i n g n e w.

It shoul d be rem emb ere d that the sole basis for the Appe lle e’s Motion for

Sum mar y Judg men t in t he t ria l cou rt w as hi s clai m that h is statem ent w as

pri v ile ged. A ppel lee now c onfir ms th at hi s li bel ous statem ent w as al leg edl y

publ ished “i n a nticip ation of threa tened li tigati on.” Th ere fore it is n ow clea r

that A ppel lee is no lon ger takin g the v ery

qu estiona ble po sition that his l ibe l

w as m ade in conne ction w ith an on -g oi ng law suit. Appe lle e’s B rie f, p. 9

.

W hil e it is conceded by

Ap pel lan t that James v. Brown

, 637 S.W .2d 9 14, 9 16-

17 ( T ex . 1 98 2) m ad e i t c l ea r th at co m m un i ca ti on s i n th e due co urse of a

jud icial pr oceed ing ar e a bsolu tely pr iv ile ged, since A pp ellee has n ow

co nc ed ed th at h i s c om m un i ca ti on w as a l l eg ed l y made i n co nn ec ti on w i th

antici pated liti gatio n, the absol ute pri v ile ge noted by the Ja mes v . Bro wn cour t

i s i na pp l i ca bl e.AP PE L L ANT’ S REPL Y B RI EF

- P AGE 5 OF 8

Li ke w i se , A pp el l ee ’ s d i scu ssi on o f C ra i n v. Sm i th is ina ppl icabl e. In the

Cr ain ca se th i s C ou rt n ot ed th at a n at to rn ey i s ab so l ut el y pr i v i l eg ed to p ub l i sh

de fa m at or

y st at em en ts co nc er ni ng a no th er i n co m m un i ca ti on s p re l i m i na ry to

a p r o p o s e d j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g i n whi c h t h e a t t o r n e y par ticipa tes as counsel

,

and if the com mun icatio n has some rel ation to t he proceedi

ng. C ra i

n v.

Sm i th

, 22 S.W .3d 5 8, 62 (T ex .App. –C orp us C hri sti 20 00, n o p et.). In tha t

case, thi s Co urt not ed t hat Smi th’s l etter to R amse y stated her

factual

al l eg at i on s a nd l eg al co nc l us i on s s ur ro un di ng a pr op os ed l eg al ac ti on a ga i ns t

R am se y ’ s cli en t. Id. at 63. Th ere fore, there fore the l etter had some re lati on

to th e pr oc ee di ng a nd w as w ri tte n on b eh al f o f a cl i en t. Id.

Th e R us se l

l v. C l ar k case cited by Appe lle e inv olv es a situatio n w her e

Cl ark w as actua lly

coun sel fo r cer

tain par ties, and w her e the com mun icatio n

was m ad e dur ing an on goi ng case (b etw een trial s). 6 20 S.W .2d 8 65, 8 70

(T ex .App.–D all as 1981 (w rit ref’d n.r .e.). Th e Ru ssell case is also dissim ila r

to the in stant case. Tw o v ery clear distin ctions betw een the i nstant case and

all the cases cited by

Ap pel lee ar e tha t (1 ) i n a ll the ca ses cited, the a ttorne y

w as re pre senting a clien t, and (2 ) th e i mpr oper com mun icatio n a ctuall y ha d

some re lati onshi p to a p rop osed liti gatio n.AP PE L L ANT’ S REPL Y B RI EF

- P AGE 6 OF 8

Appe lle e’s ci tation to the Kri s hn an v . Law Offices o f Pre ston

H e n r i ch so n, P.C. i s l i ke w i se m i sd i r e ct e d

. A g a i n

, t h e l e t t e r a t i ss ue in

Kri shnan clear ly had some all eged rel ation ship to a future pr oceed ing

– it w as

a 4 590i le tter setti ng out fu ture claim s, and w as req uir ed by statute to be sent

pri or to a med ical negl ige nce case bei ng file d. No ne of Ap pel lee ’s cases

st an d fo r th e pr op os i ti on th at an y comm uni cation pri or to a law suit i s

pri v ile ged. T he comm uni cation mus t be re ad in contex t and mus t bear s ome

re l at i on sh i p to a p ro po se d j ud i ci al p ro ce ed i ng

.

Mr. Hubb ard’s lett er w as not on beha lf of a cl ient ; did no t dis cu ss clai ms

to be asserte d; di d n ot di scuss any clai ms to b e de f en ded; did no t set o ut

fu tu re cl ai m s a ga i ns t A pp el l an t; w as n ot m an da to ry o r a p re re qu i si te to su i t;

w as no t re qui red by

la w ; and o nly

m akes a passing m entio n o f a pro posed

law suit b y

Ap pel lan t aga inst A ppel lee . A ppel lee ’s l et t er d oe s not bea r a ny

rel ation ship to a pro posed , thre atene d o r e x isting l aws uit. Accordi ngl y , the

pri v ile ge does not a ttach an d i s not av ail abl e.

II

.

PRA YER

W HE REF ORE , PR EMIS ES C ONS IDER ED, Appe lla nt R ONA LD G.

HOL E p ray s t ha t t he ju dgm ent o f the trial cour t in fav or of Ap pel lee beAP PE L L ANT’ S REPL Y B RI EF

- P AGE 7 OF 8

rev ersed

, that this Co urt ren der a summ ary

ju dgm ent i n A ppel lan t’s fav or as

to hi s clai m for defam ation pe r se , and that th is c as e b e r ema nded on the

issue o f dam ages onl y , and tha t al l costs he rei n, i nclud ing costs on appe al,

be a sse sse d ag ai ns t Ap pe l l ee , an d fo r su ch oth er a nd fu rt he r re l i ef

to w hi ch

Appe lla nt m ay

be ju stly en titled

.

Re spectfully subm itted,

By : /s/ R onal d G. Ho le

R on al d G. H ol e, Pro Se

State Bar No . 098 3420 0

P. O. Bo x

72 0547

McAl len , T ex as 78 504

Te lep hone N o.: ( 956) 63 1-2 891

Te lecop ier

N o.: ( 956) 63 1-2 415

E- M ai l : mai l@hol eal v are z.comAP PE L L ANT’ S REPL Y B RI EF

- P AGE 8 OF 8 CERTIFI CA

TE OF COM PLIA NCE

In com pli ance w ith T ex. R.Ap p.P. 9 .4(i) (3) , I, R onal d G. Ho le, her eby

certify that this A ppel lan t’s R epl y Br ief, e x cludi ng the sections to be ex clude d,

contain s 1,77 6 w ord s. I h ave re lied o n the w ord coun t of th e com puter

p r o g r a m u se d t o p r e p a r e t h i s d o cu m e n t

, Wo r d P e r f e ct X3 ®

/s/ R onal d G. Ho le

Ro nal d G. Ho le

CERTIFI CA

TE OF SERVI CE

I, Ro nal d G. Ho le, hereby certi fy that a tr ue and corre ct copy of the

a b o v e A p p e l l a n t ’ s R e p l y B r i e f h a s, o n t h i s the 21 day of A pril 2 015 , bee n st

serv ed v ia elect ron ic t rans fer t hro ug h an o nline f iling se rv ice, to the

foll ow ing coun sel o f re cord:

W ill iam L. Hu bbar d

A t t o r n e y at L a w

6 2 V i s t a S a n J u a n Dr i ve

Pago sa Sp rin gs, C olo rad o 8 1147 -70 04

E- M A I L: Hubbard43@ gmai l. com

/s/ Ron ald G. H ole

BCC :HOL -HU B\APP Ro nal d G. Ho le