hichwere which voluntarily nonsuited. were voluntarily nonsuited.TEX. TEX.R. R. Civ.P.9la.5.The9la P. 91a.5. The 9Ia in Motion toDismiss Motion to wastimely timely filedwithin ixtydays withinssixty daysoof fSilverado's Silverado's waiverofservice. of service.TEX. TEX.R. rR Dismisswas R. Civ.
P. 9 P. 1a.3. iN N 91a.3.
2) 2) Plaintiffs Sanction Request Request Should Should Be BeDenied Denied
seek sanctions Plaintiffs seek sanctions against against Silverado Silveradoand andMr. Mr.D avis Davisfor"misrepresenting for "misrepresentingknown knownffacts actstoto theCourt the Court andfiling wofrivolouspleadings and filingttwo underR pleadingsunder ules1100and13and/or Rules pursuanttototheCourt's and 13 and/orpursuant the Court's inherent Thebasis inherent authority. '1° The basis o offthesanctions the sanctionssought soughtareas are as follows:
1) TheRule9la 1) Motion(s)wereuntimely; The Rule 91a Motion(s)were untimely;therefore, therefore,they arefrivolous; theyare frivolous; 2) 2) Silverado Silveradoknewof the November knew of the November 115, 5,2013revocation 2013 revocationbbecause ecauseititwas wasrecorded recordedin in propertyrecords,shouldhaveplaced inRuby property records, should have placedititin RubyPeterson's Peterson'sfileandmade sureall file and madesure all employeesknewaboutit;and, employees knew about it; and, 3) Mr.Davismisstates thelawbystringciting12(b)(6) withRule91a. 3) Mr. Davis misstates the law by string citing 12(b)(6) withRule91a. Tuming othefirstissue, Turning tto it isunclear whatspecific "frivolous" and/oruntimely motions the first issue, it is unclear what specific "frivolous" and/or untimely motions Plaintiffsreferoas Plaintiffs refer tto thereis nopin as there isno citeintheBriefin However, although miscalculated by pin cite in the Brief in Support. However, although miscalculated by aa coupleofdays,Plaintiffs concedeso long couple of days, Plaintiffs concede so theoriginal 9laMotiontoDismiss as the original 91a Motionto longas Dismisswas filedon or was filedonor beforeSeptember 29,2014it was timely.1 1 Asillustrated before September 29, 2014 itwas above,Silverado's 91aMotion Asi llustrated above, Silverado's 91a toDismiss Motion to Dismiss istimely beforetheCourtevenbyPlaintiffs is timely before the Courteven standards. by Plaintiffs standards.
SeePlaintiffs' BriefinSupportat 1. 1° See Plaintiffs' Brief in Supportat 1. SeeBriefinSupportat 4. " See Brief in Support at 4.
4815-8867-2544.1
Silverado Appx. 0456 No. 1-15-567-CV 1520 Withrregard With egard ttoothesecond issue,Silverado the second issue, Silveradowasnot was given notgiven ofthe notice of anddid the revocation and did not not I 0 I 0 accept accept theNovember 15,22013 the November 15, 013revocation revocation at any time. at any Therepresentations time. The representationsrelated related thisissue tothis to are issue are
egregious. egregious. admit Plaintiffs admit that theNovember thatthe 2013revocation November 2013 revocationwas seekto yetseek wasinvalid12 yet tohave Mr. have Mr.
Davis andSilverado Davis and sanctioned Silverado sanctioned forprotecting for theelderly protecting the andenforcing elderly and enforcingtheeffective the 1993P effective 1993 ower Power of of
Attomey. Attorney.
Finally, Plaintiffs Finally, Plaintiffs seektotoimpose seek impose sanctions sanctions foraamisstatement for misstatement oflaw of withregard law with regardtoI12(b)(6) to 2(b)(6) andRule and Rule91a 9labeing being a nalogous. analogous. Texas Texas Appellate Appellate Court's Court's applying --applying State State law--are law areclearly clearly construing
Rule 91aasa Rule91a facialplausibility as a facial plausibilitystandard standard akinto akin to theT andIqbal the Twombly and standard. Iqbal standard. Wooley, Wooley, 2014
Tex.App. Tex. LEXIS8983 App. LEXIS 8983at *10quoting at *10 550U.S. quoting (((Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570)(Iqbal, at 570) 556U.S. (Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678));see at 678)); see also,((GoDaddy.com, also, LLCv.v.Hollie ((GoDaddy.com, LLC HollieToups, Toups, 429S.W.3d 752(Tex. 429 S.W.3d 752 App. -