NO. 04-14-00363-CV 

****

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOURTH SUPREME JUDICIAL 

DISTRICT- SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

 

AUGUSTINE NWABUISI, ROSE NWABUISI, RESOURCE HEALTH 

SERVICES, INC. d/b/a RESOURCE HOME HEALTH SERVICES, INC., 

and RESOURCE CARE CORPORATION, 

Appellants, 

V. 

DANA D. MOHAMMADI, 

Appellee 

** ** 

APPELLEE’S REPLY TO APPELLANTS’ RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S 

MAY 28, 2015 ORDER

 

EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER, Philip J. Moss, 8301 Broadway St., Ste. 309, 

San Antonio, Texas 78209, T: (210) 308-6222 Ext. 102, F: (210) 308-6223 

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 07/14/2015 10:06:28 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
Page 2 of 3

** ** 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: Now comes Appellee, Dana 

D. Mohammadi, and respectfully submits Appellee’s Reply to Appellants’ Response 

to the Court’s May 28, 2015 Order.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

Appellants’ Response to the Court’s May 28, 2015 Order fails to provide any basis as to 

why Appellants’ entire appeal is not moot. Citing no authority and failing to address the pertinent 

case law of Farkas and Bahar, Appellants simply contend that the entry of a subsequent order 

superseding the appealed order is “improper.” (Appellants’ Response at 5). Likewise, Appellants’ 

Response does not address any of the arguments as to mootness raised in Appellee’s Brief and 

discussed in the Court’s May 28, 2015 Order (Appellee’s Brief at 12-14). 

While failing to distinguish Farkas (Appellee’s Brief at 16), the posture of which is nearly 

identical to the case before the Court, Appellants’ Response cites to numerous inapposite cases, 

most of which have no bearing on the mootness issue (Appellants’ Response at 6-8). See

Halliburton Co. V. KBR, Inc. 446 S.W.3d 551 (Houston [1st Dist.] 2014)(finding appeal of motion 

to compel arbitration not moot even though parties engaged in subsequent arbitration because 

Court’s action could affect the rights of parties in regards to a motion to vacate the arbitration 

award); Prescott v. McCann, 60 S.W.2d 548 (Tex.Civ.—El Paso 1933) (discussing requirement of 

notice for appointment of a pre-judgment receiver); and Houston and BV Ry. Co. V. Hughes, 182 

S.W.23 (Galveston 1916)(discussing mootness in the context of appointment of different receivers 

in separate state court and federal court proceedings). 
Page 3 of 3

Finally, Appellee objects to the inaccurate and misleading statement of facts in Appellant’s 

Response, which frequently fails to cite to the record on appeal. Among many misstatements, 

Appellants’ falsely maintain that the Appellants’ appealed the subsequent amended and 

supplemental turnover order (Appellants’ Response at 4, paragraph 9), that the receiver collected 

monies for attorney’s fees in excess of the judgment (Appellants’ Response at 2, fn. 1), and that 

the receiver collected funds to which the appellee is not entitled (Appellants’ Response at 6-7). 

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

For all of the foregoing reasons, Resource’s appeal is moot in its entirety, and in the 

alternative, the Original Turnover Order should not be disturbed as any alleged deficiencies have 

been cured in the Amended Turnover Order.

Respectfully Submitted,

EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER

8301 Broadway St., Ste. 309

San Antonio, Texas 78209

T: (210) 308-6222 Ext. 102

F: (210) 308-6223 

By: /s/ Philip J. Moss

Philip J. Moss

State Bar No.: 24074764

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the counsel of 

record for the Appellants and the Court of Appeals on this the 14th day of July, 2015 by 

electronic service.

/s/ Philip J. Moss

Philip J. Moss