vacate. Based
on thesedefinitions, it would be contrary to English languageto assertthat a motion to quash
does not constitute a motion to correct. To wit, the quashing of an order that is entirely invalid
absolutely constitutesa correction or reform of that order.
Furthermore,a motion is to be determinedby its substanca,not title (.Rashv. Barrios,56
S.W. 3d, 88, 93 (Tex. App.- Houston[4tr Dist.] 200l, pet. denied). The ISTAMENDED
MOTION TO REINSTATE AND MOTION TO QUASH is clearly intended, in part, to show the
trial court that the dismissal under Rule 91a was improper and that this effor neededto be
corrected.
Pursuantto the above and Rule 329b(g),the filing the lsr AMENDED MOTION TO
REINSTATE AND MOTION TO QUASH effectively extendedthe trial courtosplenary power
Page4 of 9 for 30 days. Thetrial courthasconcurredwith this assertion,asit interpretedthe motionasa
requestto corrector refofin an improperjudgmentandactedaccordingly.
4. In referenceto the effect of the filings cited above, the AMENDED BRIEF OF
on page15that".,.two of theoriginalcausesof actionthatwere APPELLEEacknowledges
undertheRuleglamotion..." werereinstated.As asserted dismissedon October14ft.,2013 in
the l sr AMENDED BRIEF OF APPELLANT' regardless of any citationof Rule 165a,the case
wasproperlyreinstatedunderthe authorityof Rule 9l a becausethat is the Rulethe casewas
improperlydismissedunder. Justasthe natureof a motionis determinedby its substance, the
Appellantassertsthatthis rule appliesto courtordersaswell. It is throughthe substance thatthe
trial courtspecificallymadesureto includein the ORDERON MOTION TO REINSTATEthat
the intentof that courtis madeclear- o'onlyasto the Causesof Action allegingDefamationand
Breachof Contract". It is uncontestable thatthe trial courtincludedthesewordsin responseto
the Rule9la issuespresented by the Appellate.
5. On page14of theAMENDED BRIEF OF APPELLEE,the Appelleestatesthe
DEFENDANT'SRULE 9lA MOTION TO DISMISSwasappropriately granted.Thetrail court
this to be untruethroughthe ORDERON MOTION TO hasalreadyacknowledged
REINSTATE.
6. The AMENDED BRIEF OF APPELLEEalsocontendsthat theNOTICE OF
APPEAL was not filed in a timely manner. Pursuantto the timeline and effect of the filings
presentin item 2 above,this Court can clearly seethis to be false.
7. In severalplacesthe Appellee attemptsto import motive to the Appellant's
filings, This is improper. The Appellant assertsthat the motive for each filing is clear within the
Page5 of 9 of the filing. It shouldalsobe notedthat the effectof certainfilings is separatefrom substance
the motivefor the filings. For example,a party doesnot needto intendfor a motionto corrector
modiff ajudgmentto extendthe plenarypowerof the court,that is simplythe effectof the
motion.
8. Item 14on page37 of the AMENDED BRIEFOF APPELLEEis irrelevant
becausethe trial courthasalreadyacknowledged that the dismissalunderRule 9la was
improper.
9. Item l5 on page38 of the AMENDED BRIEFOF APPELLEEis falseand
irrelevant. The Appellant has the right to presenttwo argumentsbefore the court. The Appellate
made argumentsrelated to Rule l65aand Rule 91a becausethe Appellate was confused as to the
basis for the dismissal. The Appellate knew that the casecould not be dismissedunder either
rule, but yet it was. At the hearing on November l2h,z}l3,the arguedonly those reasons
related to Rule 9la becauseno notice of hearing for a dismissal under Rule l65awas ever issued.
As to the attachedorder, the Appellate is aware the trial court has the authority to amend
a proposedorder and designedit to allow the trial court to easily remove or cross-outany
citations to the irrelevantruleoRule 91a versusRule 165a,