throbber
ACCEPTED
`13-23-00422-CV
`THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
`CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
`2/5/2024 3:59 PM
`Kathy S. Mills
`CLERK
`
` IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
`THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CAUSE NO. 13-23-00422-CV
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
` §
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HECTOR GARCIA, JR.
`
` Appellant,
`
`V.
`
`SPACE EXPLORATION
`TECHNOLOGIES CORP D/B/A
`SPACEX; LAUREN ELIZABETH;
`KRUEGER
`
` Appellees
`
`
`
`
`
`APPELLANT’S OPPOSED MOTION TO STAY APPEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THIS COURT:
`
`Now comes HECTOR GARCIA, JR., Appellant in the above cause, and
`
`submits this opposed motion to stay appeal pending decision of Appellees-Relators’
`
`Petition for Writ of Mandamus in this Court.
`
`On December 13, 2023, the trial court granted Plaintiff-Appellant’s motion
`
`for new trial. On January 11, 2024, Relator-Appellee filed a Petition for Writ of
`
`Mandamus challenging that decision. On January 12, 2024, this Court requested a
`
`1
`
` FILED IN
`
` 13th COURT OF APPEALS
`
`CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS
`
` 2/5/2024 3:59:31 PM
`
` KATHY S. MILLS
`
` Clerk
`
`

`

`response from Plaintiff-Appellant to the mandamus petition within 10 days of the
`
`trial court’s order, making the response due January 22, 2024. Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`requested and received a 30-day extension to file his response. In the meantime, his
`
`appeal is underway; the Clerk’s Record was received in this Court on November 6,
`
`2023, and the Reporter’s Record is due on February 5, 2024.
`
`A denial of Relators-Appellees’ mandamus petition would render this
`
`particular appeal moot because a new trial would ensue at that point, and dismissal
`
`of the present appeal would be proper. Conversely, should this Court grant Relators-
`
`Appellees’ mandamus petition, the trial court judgment from which Plaintiff-
`
`Appellant originally appealed would be reinstated, and that subsequent judgment
`
`would control, rendering premature, but effective, Appellant’s originally filed notice
`
`of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 27.1(a), 27.2.
`
`Thus, staying Appellant’s current appeal during the pendency of Relator’s
`
`mandamus petition is arguably permitted by the Rules of Appellate Procedure and
`
`would save judicial time and resources. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615,
`
`616 (Tex. 1997).
`
`For the reasons above, Appellant respectfully requests that the Court grant his
`
`motion to stay until the outcome of Relators-Appellees’ Petition for Writ of
`
`Mandamus is known.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`BLIZZARD & ZIMMERMAN, P.L.L.C.
`1174 North 3rd St.
`Abilene, Texas 79601
`Tel: (325) 676.1000
`Fax: (325) 455.8842
`
`By:/s/Sarah Durham
`Sarah Durham
`State Bar No. 24116309
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`I certify that on February 2, 2024, my assistant, via email, contacted opposing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`counsels: Michelle Pector; Jared Wilkerson; William Peterson; David Oliveira, and
`
`Dan Erwin, Jr., asking if any opposed Appellant’s Motion to Stay. Mr. Peterson
`
`replied, not exactly opposing, but stating that a Motion to Dismiss is appropriate
`
`here. No other counsels responded.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:/s/ Sarah Durham
`Sarah Durham
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that I have reviewed the above Motion to Stay, and it was
`
`served in accordance with Rule 9.5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure on
`
`William Peterson, Michelle Pector, Jared Wilkerson, and David Oliveira, attorneys
`
`for
`
`Space
`
`Exploration
`
`Technologies
`
`Corp.
`
`d/b/a
`
`Spacex,
`
`at:
`
`William.peterson@morganlewis.com,
`
`michelle.pector@morganlewis.com,
`
`jared.wilkerson@morganlewis.com, and doliveira@rofllp.com, respectively, in
`
`addition to D. Alan Erwin, attorney for Lauren Elizabeth Krueger.
`
`
`
`
`By:/s/ Sarah Durham
`Sarah Durham
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Automated Certificate of eService
`This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
`The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
`on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
`certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
`certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
`Jacob Blizzard on behalf of Sarah Durham
`Bar No. 24116309
`Jacob.Blizzard@blizzardlawfirm.com
`Envelope ID: 84161366
`Filing Code Description: Motion
`Filing Description: Appellant's Opposed Motion to Stay Appeal
`Status as of 2/5/2024 4:14 PM CST
`
`Associated Case Party: Hector Garcia
`
`Name
`Morgan Walker
`Sarah Durham
`Yazmin Campbell
`
`BarNumber Email
`Morgan@blizzardlawfirm.com
`sarah@blizzardlawfirm.com
`yazmin@blizzardlawfirm.com
`
`TimestampSubmitted
`2/5/2024 3:59:31 PM
`2/5/2024 3:59:31 PM
`2/5/2024 3:59:31 PM
`
`Status
`SENT
`SENT
`SENT
`
`Associated Case Party: Space Exploration Technologies Corp. d/b/a SpaceX, Lauren
`Elizabeth Krueger , Lauren Elizabeth Krueger
`
`Name
`David Oliveira
`
`BarNumber Email
`doliveira@rofllp.com
`
`TimestampSubmitted
`2/5/2024 3:59:31 PM
`
`Status
`SENT
`
`Case Contacts
`
`Name
`William R.Peterson
`Michelle Pector
`Jared Wilkerson
`Norma Orozco
`Dan Alan Erwin
`
`BarNumber
`
`6653020
`
`Email
`william.peterson@morganlewis.com
`michelle.pector@morganlewis.com
`jared.wilkerson@morganlewis.com
`norma.orozco@morganlewis.com
`aerwin@rofllp.com
`
`TimestampSubmitted
`2/5/2024 3:59:31 PM
`2/5/2024 3:59:31 PM
`2/5/2024 3:59:31 PM
`2/5/2024 3:59:31 PM
`2/5/2024 3:59:31 PM
`
`Status
`SENT
`SENT
`SENT
`SENT
`SENT
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket