2014No.02-13-00340-CV, No. 02-13-00340-CV, 2014Tex.App.Lexis12572 2014 Tex. App. Lexis 12572 (Tex. (Tex. A pp. - App.
Fort WorthNov. FortWorth Nov.220, 0,2014, pet.h.).TheMotion opet. 2014,nno toReconsider h.). The Motionto Reconsiderdoes notsubstantively doesnot substantivelychallenge, challenge, N assert aa legalbasis assert to reconsider legal basis to reconsider and/or and/or aaddress ddresstthe meritsoftheRule91a;therefore, hemerits of the Rule 91a; therefore,ititmust mustbe be denied. denied. B) INSUPPORT & B) PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF IN SANCTIONS BE DENIED & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS MUSTBEDENIED
Plaintiffs' BriefinSupportis challengingto Plaintiffs' Brief in Support ischallenging tofollow; follow;however, however,Silverado addressesthesalient Silveradoaddresses the salient and/orrelevant pointsbelow.Forthesakeofclarity, theportions and/or relevant points below. For the sake of clarity, the portions ofthe BriefnSupport of the Briefiin Supportwhich whichaare re whollyinapplicable and werenot wholly inapplicable and were raisedbytheRule91a atissue not raised by the Rule 91aat sectionsIIininpart, are sectionsIIII issueare part,IV,Vand IV, V and Section IVrelates Sanctions andhasnothing dowith toSanctions and has nothing to V1.5 Section IV relates to fees pursuanttotoRule to do with mandatory feespursuant Rule 9la.See TEX.R.CIV. P.91a.7;seealso 91a. See TEX. R. Civ, P. 91a.7;see Drakev.Chase also Drakev. Bank,2014No.02 - 13·00340 - CV, 2014Tex. Chase Bank, 2014 No. 02-13-00340-CV, 2014 Tex. App. Lexis12572 (Tex.App.-FortWorth Nov.20,2014, nopet. App. Lexis 12572 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth Nov. 20, 2014,no h.).Section Vis anattempt pet. h.). Section V isan attemptto to recitethe91adismissalstandardwhena causeofactionhasno basis however,Silverado recite the 91a dismissal standard when a cause of action has no basis in fact; however, Silverado moved for9ladismissalPlaintiffs claims hadnobasis in Forthe samereasons,Section 111 is moved for 91a dismissal as as Plaintiffs claims hadno basis in law.6 For thesamereasons, Section III is irrelevantbeginning atpagesixwiththeboldsection starting at"A causeooffaction has nobasis in irrelevant beginning at page six with the bold section starting at "Acause action hasno basis in fact..."through thesecond tolastsentence inthesection. Additionally,Section IIIisirrelevant and fact..." through the second to last sentence in the section. Additionally, Section III is irrelevant and
See See id. (P1aintiffs' Compare BriefinSupport) with(Defendants' toDismiss Motion Pursuant toTRCP 5 Compare (Plaintiffs' Brief in Support) with (Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to TRCP Rule91a(seeking dismissalonthebasisthatPlaintiffsclaimshadno basisinlaw))and(Partial Rule 91a (seeking Withdrawal dismissal andReply on the Response toPlaintiffs' basis thatto Plaintiffs Motion tclaims had Pursuant oDismiss no basis to in TRCP law)) and (Partial 91a). Withdrawal and Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to TRCP 91a). 6Id
4515-8867-2544.1
Silverado Appx. 0454 No. 1-15-567-CV 1518 argumentative argumentative andimproper and initsreference improper in its reference to extrinsic anextrinsic to an injunction injunction whichisiswell which outside well outside ofthe of the
Court's Court's Rule91a Rule 9laanalysis. Section analysis. Section VI themediated VIrelates totothe settlement mediated settlement agreement agreement withthe onfile with on the
Court. Although Court.Although Silverado Silverado canuse can judicial use judicial admissions admissions and/or and/or partyopponent party opponentadmissions admissions forany for any C,
N purpose, theagreement purpose, the agreementreferenced referenced isnot is ofthe partof notpart Rule991a the Rule laMotion Motion to Dismiss which to Dismiss wasgranted which was granted
andiscurrently and is currently aatt issue.'
AsPlaintiffs As argument Plaintiffs argument isislimited tono limited to basis nobasis ininfact versus fact versus basis nobasis no ininlaw - ititiswholly law - in is wholly in
The