Saturday, September 12, 2015

The parties, in an agreement I cannot understand appeared to have entered a Rule 11 Contract Agreement pending further hearing. So what ever is in place is in place based on agreement of the parties, and not merely a court order.  Now they may have agreed to continue a previous court order, but that court order would only be in place by agreement of the parties - which baffles me at so many levels. 
08/18/2015  Rule 11 Letter/Agreement
08/19/2015  CANCELED   Motion Hearing  (10:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Betancourt, Laura L.)
Rule 11 agreement
Applicatin for Temporary and Permanent Injunction

It may have been the first day of law school when a professor told me to never go to court without first checking for last minute changes in appellate law.  This is why on a daily basis I read every appellate decision from the courts the lawyers I work with are subject to.  They know the feeling of walking into court with a decision which is less then 24 hours old leaving opposing counsel speechless and unfortunately in far too many cases, thin skinned judges angry.

On August 13, 2015. the Houston Court of Appeals - [ click for opinion - 1st not 14th - Houston has two appellate courts] ruled in a nearly identical case for Texas Southern University.  They found immunity applied in cases seeking to void contracts, and that the education code in these type cases do not waive immunity.

When the Rule 11 Agreement was signed this case was already 5 days old.  No competent law firm would have missed it.  It shows a laziness in representing their client.  This is why my lawyers come to me.  This would not happen in one of our cases - well unless I was not briefed as to the issues in advance.  I have done criminal cases wherein I have had the attorney ready with the case law to get the evidence in or keep evidence out - case law which in some cases was be only 3 days old. 


What I can see on line from home is just the docket entries.  I need to get to court to read the pleadings.  But if this case is on point, and it seems to be, then the attorneys need to move to void the Rule 11 Agreement, in addition for dismissal based on a Plea to the Jurisdiction.

Jaime Escobedo needs to counter sue for any damages he has suffered from this lawsuit.

All of my readers know there is no love lost between me and Escobedo - but the BV is always about process and the law and not the result. 

Part of my confidence in this post is the appellate court ruled that the plaintiffs could not amend their lawsuit to fix defects because nothing exists in law which would allow for a fix in the defects.


Anonymous said...

There you go again blimp....reacting to a Montoya original dude!

BobbyWC said...

So according to you reporting the facts instead of made up garbage is not being original. Reporting the current case law which shows TSC has bad counsel is not being original.

What is not original is you endlessly posting the same moronic comment

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

A Rent a cop is not enough security they will not protect our kids ,peace officers are needed what are these gaurds going to do if a gun is involved or a kidnapping is in progress. The board with all their brains even want to give gaurds golf carts geniuses