Court Opinion

ID: 4074792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-30 05:22:18.293574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:06:13.731541
License: Public Domain

ACCEPTED
                                                                                           01-15-00252-CV
                                                                                FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                        HOUSTON, TEXAS
                                                                                    12/15/2015 10:32:36 PM
                                                                                     CHRISTOPHER PRINE
                                                                                                    CLERK

                             No. 01-15-00252-CV
  ________________________________________________________________________
                                                                      FILED IN
                                   IN THE                  1st COURT OF APPEALS
                            COURT OF APPEALS                   HOUSTON, TEXAS
                                  FOR THE                 12/15/2015 10:32:36 PM
                    FIRST SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT        CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
                                     OF                            Clerk
                                   TEXAS
                            AT HOUSTON, TEXAS
  ________________________________________________________________________

                             ALZO PREYEAR, SR.
                                 Appellant,

                                     vs.

    KUMAR KANDASAMY AND ADVANCED PLATINUM SOLUTIONS, INC.,
                                  Appellees.
  ________________________________________________________________________

                   Appeal from the 281st Judicial District Court
                             of Harris County, Texas
        ____________________________________________________________

                        REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT
         ___________________________________________________________

                                           WILLIE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

                                           Joseph R. Willie, II, D.D.S., J.D.
                                           4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 490
                                           Houston, Texas 77027
                                           (713) 659-7330
                                           (713) 599-1659 (FAX)
                                           SBOT# 21633500
                                           attyjrwii@wisamlawyers.com

                                           ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
                                           ALZO PREYEAR, SR.

                       ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
______________________________________________________________________________
                                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                                                             Page

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                      3

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              4

I.         The Appellee, Kumar Kandasamy, did not file a brief in this
           case, thus the Court should accept the factual assertions in
           the Brief of Appellant as true . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             5

II.        The Appellant supplied this Court with ample record reference
           support and did not waive his “against the great weight and
           preponderance of the evidence” point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                   5

III.       The Appellee has incorrectly defined the standard of review
           concerning the “against the great weight and preponderance
           of the evidence” point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         6

PRAYER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                      8

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                           8

                                                                       2
                                                INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

                                                                                                                                 Page(s)

CASES:

Bandy v. First State Bank,
      835 S.W.2d 609 (Tex. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                       5

Bobbitt v. Womble,
       708 S.W.2d 558 (Tex. App.--Houston
       [1st Dist.] 1986, no writ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                6

Cain v. Bain,
       709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                    6, 7

Fredonia State Bank v. General American Life Ins.,
      881 S.W.2d 279 (Tex. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                       5

In re King’s Estate,
        244 S.W.2d 660 (Tex. 1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                   7

Kennard v. McCray,
      648 S.W.2d 743 (Tex. App.--Tyler
      1983, writ ref’d n.r.e.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             6

National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg v. Janes,
       687 S.W.2d 822 (Tex. App.--El Paso
       1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            6

Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. v. Schmidt,
      935 S.W.2d 520 (Tex. App.--Beaumont
      1996, writ denied) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           5

Preston State Bank v. Jordan,
       692 S.W.2d 740 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth
       1985, no writ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      7

RULES AND STATUTES:

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      5

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     4

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      4

                                                                      3
                              No. 01-15-00252-CV
   ________________________________________________________________________

                                    IN THE
                             COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE
                     FIRST SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT
                                      OF
                                    TEXAS
                             AT HOUSTON, TEXAS
   ________________________________________________________________________

                               ALZO PREYEAR, SR.
                                   Appellant,

                                           vs.

     KUMAR KANDASAMY AND ADVANCED PLATINUM SOLUTIONS, INC.,
                                   Appellees.
   ________________________________________________________________________

                    Appeal from the 281st Judicial District Court
                              of Harris County, Texas
         ____________________________________________________________

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

                                INTRODUCTION

      Pursuant to Rules 38.3 and 38.6(c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure, the Appellant, Alzo Preyear, Sr., files his Reply Brief of Appellant.

This reply brief is to respond to those arguments proffered by the Appellees,

Kumar Kandasamy and Advanced Platinum Solutions, Inc., that were not

reasonably anticipated by the Appellant.

                                           4
I.    The Appellee, Kumar Kandasamy, did not file a brief in this case, thus
      the Court should accept the factual assertions in the Brief of Appellant
      as true.

      The Appellee, Kumar Kandasamy, has not filed a brief in this case and has

not sought an extension of time to file a brief in this case. If the appellee does not

file a brief, the appellate court may accept as true any factual statement made in

appellant’s brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g). See also Fredonia State Bank v.

General American Life Ins., 881 S.W.2d 279, 283 (Tex. 1994); Bandy v. First State

Bank, 835 S.W.2d 609, 617 n.2 (Tex. 1992); Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. v.

Schmidt, 935 S.W.2d 520, 525 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1996, writ denied). The

Appellant requests that the Court accept as true the factual statements contained in

the Brief of Appellant and reverse the judgment of the trial court and render

judgment for the Appellant or, in the alternative, reverse the judgment of the trial

court and remand the case with instructions to order a new trial.

II.   The Appellant supplied this Court with ample record reference
      support and did not waive his “against the great weight and
      preponderance of the evidence” point.

      Om pages 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Brief of Appellant, this Court was supplied

with the requisite record references to show that the jury’s verdict was “against the

great weight and preponderance of the evidence, Appellee’s argument

notwithstanding. Only when a party presents an issue but omits the required

                                           5
discussion of the facts and authorities relied on may an appellate court consider the

issue as waived. Such is certainly not the case in this appeal. Cf. Kennard v.

McCray, 648 S.W.2d 743, 746 (Tex. App.--Tyler 1983, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Bobbitt v.

Womble, 708 S.W.2d 558, 560 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, no writ).

       The Appellee’s waiver argument is totally without merit and should not be

considered by this Court in its adjudication of this case.

III.   The Appellee has incorrectly defined the standard of review
       concerning the “against the great weight and preponderance
       of the evidence” point.

       Contrary to the standard of review offered by the Appellee, the Appellant,

once again, states the appropriate standard of review concerning an “against the

great weight and preponderance of the evidence” issue. If the error assigned is that

a certain finding was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, a

court of appeals must consider and weigh all of the evidence in the record that is

relevant to the point. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); National

Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg v. Janes, 687 S.W.2d 822, 825 (Tex. App.--El

Paso 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.). A great weight point requires a consideration of all

evidence, both tending to prove the fact and that tending to disprove the fact.

National Fire, 687 S.W.2d at 825. An appellate court may set aside a verdict for

insufficient evidence only if the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight

                                           6
of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain, 709 S.W.2d at 176; In re

King’s Estate, 244 S.W.2d 660, 661 (Tex. 1951). Lastly, in reviewing a trial

court’s take nothing judgment, the appellate court applies the same standard of

review as would be applicable to an instructed verdict in a jury trial, accepting as

true all evidence favorable to the appellant, and indulging every intendment against

the judgment. Preston State Bank v. Jordan, 692 S.W.2d 740, 743 (Tex. App.--Fort

Worth 1985, no writ). In short, the Appellee is totally wrong in its application of

the incorrect standard of review. The judgment of the trial court should be reversed

and judgment rendered for the Appellant or, in the alternative, the judgment of the

trial court should be reversed and remanded with instructions to order a new trial.

                                     PRAYER

      For the foregoing reasons and the reasons given in his opening brief, the

Appellant, Alzo Preyear, Sr., prays that the judgment of the trial court be reversed

and judgment rendered for the Appellant or, in the alternative, the judgment of the

trial court should be reversed and remanded with instructions to order a new trial.

                                       Respectfully submitted,

                                       WILLIE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

                                          7
                                   By: /s/ Joseph R. Willie, II, D.D.S., J.D.
                                     Joseph R. Willie, II, D.D.S., J.D.
                                     4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 490
                                     Houston, Texas 77027
                                     (713) 659-7330
                                     (713) 599-1659 (FAX)
                                     SBOT# 21633500
                                     attyjrwii@wisamlawyers.com

                                     ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
                                     ALZO PREYEAR, SR.

                        CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

      I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was
served via e-service to Lori A. Hood, 1301 McKinney Street, Suite 3700, Houston,
Texas 77010 and Jeffery A. Addicks, 3040 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1020,
Houston, Texas 77056, on the 15th day of December, 2015.

                                     /s/ Joseph R. Willie, II, D.D.S., J.D.
                                     Joseph R. Willie, II, D.D.S., J.D.

                     CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

      I certify that the Reply Brief of Appellant submitted complies with TEX. R.
APP. P. 9 and the word count of this document is 765. The word processing
software used to prepare the document and to calculate the word count is Windows
7.

                                     /s/ Joseph R. Willie, II, D.D.S., J.D.
                                     Joseph R. Willie, II, D.D.S., J.D.

                                        8