Preview
FILED
12/8/2022 4:00 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Marissa Gomez DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-21-05550
SPHINX RESIDENTIAL, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§
VS. §
§ DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE §
COMPANY, INC. and STRATA §
CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, LLC § 95TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
OF THE TRIAL DATE AND SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:
COMES NOW, Sphinx Residential, LLC, (hereafter “Plaintifi”), by and through
undersigned counsel, and respectfully submits this Unopposed Motion for Continuance of Trial
Date and Supplement to Plaintiff ’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment, and in support hereof, Plaintiff would state and show as follows:
I. Introduction
l. Plaintiff in this matter is Sphinx Residential, LLC. The Defendants are United
Specialty Insurance Company, Inc. and Strata Claims Management, LLC.
2. Plaintiff has sued the Defendants for breach of contract, unfair claims settlement
practices and Violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
3. Defendants have denied Plaintiff ’s allegations.
4. Trial in this cause is currently set for January l7, 2023.
5. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is set for hearing on December 15, 2022.
On December 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, which was not opposed by Defendants’
UNOPPOSED SECOND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE TRIAL DATE PAGE 1 0F 7
counsel.
H. Facts
6. Neither party has made an unconditional announcement of ready for trial.
7. This case still requires resolution of significant discovery issues, review of voluminous
document production produced recently by Defendants, taking of party and witness depositions,
resolution of motions for summary judgment, as well as mediation in order for Plaintiff to be
able to either settle the case or adequately prepare for trial. The Parties have agreed to conduct
mediation. In the event the case does require trial, evidence preparation will require significant
time. Plaintiff has discussed these issues with Defendants requests moving the trial date forward
for at least ninety (90) days. Additionally, Plaintiff believes that the current deadlines established
under the Initial Trial Setting will not allow adequate time to fully prepare this case for trial.
Plaintiff requests that the deadlines established under the Initial Trial Setting be re-established
under a new Trial setting. Therefore, Plaintiff requests a rescheduling of the current trial date for
at least ninety (90) days from the currently set trial date of January l7, 2023 and requests that the
deadlines established under the Initial Trial Setting be re-established under the new Trial setting
in order for full discovery, depositions and mediation to be conducted.
8. As to the December 15, 2022 hearing on the motion for summary judgment, pursuant to
Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a(g), Plaintiff needs the additional discovery requested from Defendants to be
able to respond to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs also have filed a Motion to
Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, which is incorporated by reference as if
fully set forth herein. Defendants have admitted in their responses to the requests for production
that they are withholding certain documents that they claim are not relevant and/or privileged. In
addition, Plaintiff believe that Defendant have withheld from production other relevant and
UNOPPOSED SECOND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE TRIAL DATE PAGE 2 0F 7
discoverable documents. These discovery issues need to be resolved, and Plaintiff needs all of
the requested documents to respond to the motion for summary judgment.
9. In addition, the motion for summary judgment is based principally on the Engineering
Evaluation Report of UBSE, which is Exhibit D to the motion for summary judgment, and Which
contains the opinion that Plaintiff ’s roof was not damaged in the October 20, 2019 storm in the
manner and to the extent claimed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff needs to take the depositions of one or
more of the six persons who were involved in the preparation of the UBSE report. However,
before those depositions are taken, Plaintiff needs the additional discoverable documents that
have not been produced by Defendants as noted above that are the subject of the motion to
compel.
III. Argument
10. Every trial court has the inherent power to control the disposition of the cases on its
docket “‘with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for 1itigants.”’ Hoggett v.
Brown, 971 S.W.2d 472, 495 (Tex. App-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, pet. denied) (quoting Landis
v. North Am. C0., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)).
11. In addition, all courts have inherent power to grant or deny a continuance. McClure v.
Attebury, 20 S.W.3d 722, 729 (Tex. App-Amarillo 1999, no pet.) (citing Bray v. Miller, 397
S.W.2d 103, 105 (Tex. Civ. App-Dallas 1965, no writ)).
12. By this motion, the Parties request the Court for a continuance in this case and a
continuance of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. The continuance of this case
will not unreasonably interfere with the other business of the Court. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 330(d).
13. By granting continuance of the trial date and the summary judgment hearing, the Court
may facilitate the resolution of this dispute by settlement, mediation, and/or dispositive motions.
UNOPPOSED SECOND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE TRIAL DATE PAGE 3 0F 7
14. Plaintiff does not request this motion for continuance for delay only, but so that justice
may be done and in order to fully develop the case and prepare it for settlement and/or trial.
Neither Party will be prejudiced by the new trial date and the new summary judgment hearing
date..
IV. Conclusion and Prayer
15. For the reasons presented herein, Plaintifls herein pray that this Honorable Court
continue the trial of this matter currently set for January 17, 2023 and reset the trial for at least
ninety (90) days, and that the Court continue the hearing date on the motion for summary
judgment for at least 30 days so that the needed documents can be obtained and depositions
taken. This request for continuance is not for delay only, but so that justice may be done. Plaintifi‘
requests such other and further relief to which it may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Robert Wood
Robert C. C. Wood
rccwood@aol.com
Texas State Bar No. 21914500
6688 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75206
(214) 369-3209 4 Telephone
(214) 363-1559 — Facsimile
Attorney for Plaintiff
UNOPPOSED SECOND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE TRIAL DATE PAGE 4 0F 7
AGREED & SIGNED:
r
seph Agumadu
.phinx Residential,
President
E
g
Robert éood
Attorney for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Ihereby certify that on the 5th day of December, 2022, Iconferred with counsel for Defendants
concerning the relief sought in this motion and counsel indicated that they were not opposed to the
relief sought in this motion.
/s/ Robert Wood
Robert C. C. Wood
Uxorroseo Secoxn Morrow won Commence arms TRIAL DATE page 5 of 7
CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 8th day of December, 2022, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document, Unopposed Motion for Continuance of the Trial Date was caused to be
served on all counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
David P. Andis Sent via:
J. Chad Gauntt CMRRR
GAUNTT, KOEN, BINNEY & KIDD, LLP X Eservice
25700 1-45 North, Suite 130 Facsimile
Spring, Texas 77386 Hand-Delivery
Attorney for Defendants
/s/ RobertWood
Robert C. C. Wood
UNOPPOSED SECOND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE TRIAL DATE PAGE 6 0F 7
VERIFICATION
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF DALLAS §
Before me, the undersigned notary, on this day personally appeared Robert C.C. Wood,
the at‘fiant, whose identify is known to me. After 1 administered an oath. affiant testified as
follows:
“My name is Robert CC. Wood. I am capable of making this verification. I am counsel of
recmd for the Plaintiff in this case. I have read the foregoing motion. All of the facts
stated in the motion are within my personal knowledge and are true and correct.“
Robert C.C. Wood
Sworn to and subscribed before me by Robert C.C. Wood on the day of
November, 2022.
O
\Illl LAVlCKl DIANN DARDEN
e,
V "’0,’
PU
I
up“??? = Notary Publlc, State of Texas
»
-: Notary Public, State of Texas
I”+4”if.
Comm. Expires 04—19-2025 i
:35.
I 1X
2:
\‘\‘
\ Notary ID 131098357
I’m “\
‘—
Uxorrosw SECOND Marlon ron Commence or rm: Tum. DATE Page 7 of 7
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.
Robert Wood on behalf of Robert Wood
Bar No. 21914500
rccwood@aol.com
Envelope ID: 70841248
Status as of 12/8/2022 4:07 PM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
John Chadwick Gauntt 7765990 chad.gauntt@gkbklaw.com 12/8/2022 4:00:07 PM SENT
David P Andis 793265 david.andis@gkbklaw.com 12/8/2022 4:00:07 PM SENT
Robert Wood rccwood@aol.com 12/8/2022 4:00:07 PM SENT
Michael Ahern michaelahern2@aol.com 12/8/2022 4:00:07 PM SENT
Robin Nichols robin.nichols@gkbklaw.com 12/8/2022 4:00:07 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 12/8/2022 4:00 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Marissa Gomez DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-21-05550 SPHINX RESIDENTIAL, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § VS. § § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE § COMPANY, INC. and STRATA § CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, LLC § 95TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE TRIAL DATE AND SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: COMES NOW, Sphinx Residential, LLC, (hereafter “Plaintifi”), by and through undersigned counsel, and respectfully submits this Unopposed Motion for Continuance of Trial Date and Supplement to Plaintiff ’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and in support hereof, Plaintiff would state and show as follows: I. Introduction l. Plaintiff in this matter is Sphinx Residential, LLC. The Defendants are United Specialty Insurance Company, Inc. and Strata Claims Management, LLC. 2. Plaintiff has sued the Defendants for breach of contract, unfair claims settlement practices and Violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. 3. Defendants have denied Plaintiff ’s allegations. 4. Trial in this cause is currently set for January l7, 2023. 5. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is set for hearing on December 15, 2022. On December 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, which was not opposed by Defendants’ UNOPPOSED SECOND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE TRIAL DATE PAGE 1 0F 7 counsel. H. Facts 6. Neither party has made an unconditional announcement of ready for trial. 7. This case still requires resolution of significant discovery issues, review of voluminous document production produced recently by Defendants, taking of party and witness depositions, resolution of motions for summary judgment, as well as mediation in order for Plaintiff to be able to either settle the case or adequately prepare for trial. The Parties have agreed to conduct mediation. In the event the case does require trial, evidence preparation will require significant time. Plaintiff has discussed these issues with Defendants requests moving the trial date forward for at least ninety (90) days. Additionally, Plaintiff believes that the current deadlines established under the Initial Trial Setting will not allow adequate time to fully prepare this case for trial. Plaintiff requests that the deadlines established under the Initial Trial Setting be re-established under a new Trial setting. Therefore, Plaintiff requests a rescheduling of the current trial date for at least ninety (90) days from the currently set trial date of January l7, 2023 and requests that the deadlines established under the Initial Trial Setting be re-established under the new Trial setting in order for full discovery, depositions and mediation to be conducted. 8. As to the December 15, 2022 hearing on the motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a(g), Plaintiff needs the additional discovery requested from Defendants to be able to respond to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs also have filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, which is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. Defendants have admitted in their responses to the requests for production that they are withholding certain documents that they claim are not relevant and/or privileged. In addition, Plaintiff believe that Defendant have withheld from production other relevant and UNOPPOSED SECOND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE TRIAL DATE PAGE 2 0F 7 discoverable documents. These discovery issues need to be resolved, and Plaintiff needs all of the requested documents to respond to the motion for summary judgment. 9. In addition, the motion for summary judgment is based principally on the Engineering Evaluation Report of UBSE, which is Exhibit D to the motion for summary judgment, and Which contains the opinion that Plaintiff ’s roof was not damaged in the October 20, 2019 storm in the manner and to the extent claimed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff needs to take the depositions of one or more of the six persons who were involved in the preparation of the UBSE report. However, before those depositions are taken, Plaintiff needs the additional discoverable documents that have not been produced by Defendants as noted above that are the subject of the motion to compel. III. Argument 10. Every trial court has the inherent power to control the disposition of the cases on its docket “‘with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for 1itigants.”’ Hoggett v. Brown, 971 S.W.2d 472, 495 (Tex. App-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, pet. denied) (quoting Landis v. North Am. C0., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). 11. In addition, all courts have inherent power to grant or deny a continuance. McClure v. Attebury, 20 S.W.3d 722, 729 (Tex. App-Amarillo 1999, no pet.) (citing Bray v. Miller, 397 S.W.2d 103, 105 (Tex. Civ. App-Dallas 1965, no writ)). 12. By this motion, the Parties request the Court for a continuance in this case and a continuance of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. The continuance of this case will not unreasonably interfere with the other business of the Court. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 330(d). 13. By granting continuance of the trial date and the summary judgment hearing, the Court may facilitate the resolution of this dispute by settlement, mediation, and/or dispositive motions. UNOPPOSED SECOND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE TRIAL DATE PAGE 3 0F 7 14. Plaintiff does not request this motion for continuance for delay only, but so that justice may be done and in order to fully develop the case and prepare it for settlement and/or trial. Neither Party will be prejudiced by the new trial date and the new summary judgment hearing date.. IV. Conclusion and Prayer 15. For the reasons presented herein, Plaintifls herein pray that this Honorable Court continue the trial of this matter currently set for January 17, 2023 and reset the trial for at least ninety (90) days, and that the Court continue the hearing date on the motion for summary judgment for at least 30 days so that the needed documents can be obtained and depositions taken. This request for continuance is not for delay only, but so that justice may be done. Plaintifi‘ requests such other and further relief to which it may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Robert Wood Robert C. C. Wood rccwood@aol.com Texas State Bar No. 21914500 6688 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1000 Dallas, Texas 75206 (214) 369-3209 4 Telephone (214) 363-1559 — Facsimile Attorney for Plaintiff UNOPPOSED SECOND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE TRIAL DATE PAGE 4 0F 7 AGREED & SIGNED: r seph Agumadu .phinx Residential, President E g Robert éood Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE Ihereby certify that on the 5th day of December, 2022, Iconferred with counsel for Defendants concerning the relief sought in this motion and counsel indicated that they were not opposed to the relief sought in this motion. /s/ Robert Wood Robert C. C. Wood Uxorroseo Secoxn Morrow won Commence arms TRIAL DATE page 5 of 7 CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 8th day of December, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document, Unopposed Motion for Continuance of the Trial Date was caused to be served on all counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. David P. Andis Sent via: J. Chad Gauntt CMRRR GAUNTT, KOEN, BINNEY & KIDD, LLP X Eservice 25700 1-45 North, Suite 130 Facsimile Spring, Texas 77386 Hand-Delivery Attorney for Defendants /s/ RobertWood Robert C. C. Wood UNOPPOSED SECOND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE TRIAL DATE PAGE 6 0F 7 VERIFICATION STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF DALLAS § Before me, the undersigned notary, on this day personally appeared Robert C.C. Wood, the at‘fiant, whose identify is known to me. After 1 administered an oath. affiant testified as follows: “My name is Robert CC. Wood. I am capable of making this verification. I am counsel of recmd for the Plaintiff in this case. I have read the foregoing motion. All of the facts stated in the motion are within my personal knowledge and are true and correct.“ Robert C.C. Wood Sworn to and subscribed before me by Robert C.C. Wood on the day of November, 2022. O \Illl LAVlCKl DIANN DARDEN e, V "’0,’ PU I up“??? = Notary Publlc, State of Texas » -: Notary Public, State of Texas I”+4”if. Comm. Expires 04—19-2025 i :35. I 1X 2: \‘\‘ \ Notary ID 131098357 I’m “\ ‘— Uxorrosw SECOND Marlon ron Commence or rm: Tum. DATE Page 7 of 7 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. Robert Wood on behalf of Robert Wood Bar No. 21914500 rccwood@aol.com Envelope ID: 70841248 Status as of 12/8/2022 4:07 PM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status John Chadwick Gauntt 7765990 chad.gauntt@gkbklaw.com 12/8/2022 4:00:07 PM SENT David P Andis 793265 david.andis@gkbklaw.com 12/8/2022 4:00:07 PM SENT Robert Wood rccwood@aol.com 12/8/2022 4:00:07 PM SENT Michael Ahern michaelahern2@aol.com 12/8/2022 4:00:07 PM SENT Robin Nichols robin.nichols@gkbklaw.com 12/8/2022 4:00:07 PM SENT