“Interlocutory Order” Issued
Mark Burke’s expectin’ the void injunction next…carry on Outlaws.
Originally Published: Jul 19, 2023 | Republished: Jul 21, 2023
“The Supreme Court of Texas has ‘never held corporations liable for each other’s obligations merely because of centralized control, mutual purposes, and shared finances.’”
Al Rushaid v. Nat’l Oilwell Varco, Inc., 757 F.3d 416, 424 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting SSP Partners v. Gladstrong Invs. (USA) Corp., 275 S.W.3d 444, 451 (Tex. 2009)).
One purpose of creating separate corporate entities is to shield the assets of one from the liabilities of the other.
It would be perverse for All About Homes to avoid liability for All About Property’s obligations, yet also find that the two entities are sufficiently identical such that the latter can assert a claim on the former’s behalf. And no allegations in the Complaint (or facts in the record) suggest that All About Property was positioned to assert the rights of All About Homes.
The two entities are not in privity with each other.
All About Homes, LLC v. PHH Mortg. Corp., Civil Action 4:21-CV-03750, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 20, 2022)
T E X A S O U T L A W S
“Interlocutory Order” Issued
Harris County District Judge Lauren Reeder in a Panic as She Issues Void Order Which is a Nullity
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) July 21, 2023
NOTICE OF VOID ORDERS IN CASE 2022-68307 AND CASE LAW EXHIBIT “FREEDOM” IN SUPPORT
Originally Published: Jul 21, 2023 | Republished: Jul 21, 2023
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Defendant Mark Burke herein files (i) a copy of the void “ORDER SIGNED DENYING MOTION T0 DISMISS” signed June 13, 2023 by Judge Lauren Reeder, docket date June 14, 2023; (ii) a copy of the void “DISMISSED ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION, ORDER SIGNED AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES, PLAINTIFF COSTS, ORDER GRANTING SANCTIONS SIGNED”, ‘reviewed on July 18, 2023, signed July 19, 2023 by Judge Lauren Reeder, docketed July 20, 2023 but first visible on the online docket on July 21, 2023 by Mark Burke along with, (iii) Exhibit “Freedom”, Texas Supreme Court case law and which states in part; Freedom Commc’ns, Inc. v. Coronado, 372 S.W.3d 621, 622 (Tex. 2012)
“This interlocutory appeal is from the denial of a media defendant’s motion for summary judgment regarding claims that it defamed the plaintiffs and invaded their privacy by publishing a political advertisement. We conclude that neither the court of appeals nor this Court has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the parties’ arguments because the trial court judge accepted a bribe for ruling on the summary-judgment motion, constitutionally disqualifying him from this case and thus making his order void. We vacate the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.” (emphasis added).
The above case is on point. In Mark Burke’s case before Judge Reeder in Civil Action No. 2022-68307, she received over $5,000 towards her 2022 reelection campaign from the law firm of Serpe Andrews, PLLC, who represent HCA Healthcare (Defendants).
Questionably, Judge Reeder would be randomly assigned to Mark Burke’s complaint against HCA Healthcare.
Inexplicably, at the request of Judge Lauren Reeder and after the January 9, 2023 hearing had formally concluded, she requested ex parte communications with Serpe Andrews lawyers, as documented in the official court transcript of the proceedings.
Next, she would quash Mark Burke’s witness subpoena’s which could incriminate her, in particular the Court Reporter Norma Thieme.
Yet after being constitutionally disqualified, she has continued to issue void orders as detailed above, mirroring the facts in the Freedom case. The Supreme Court confirms such orders are void and therefore a nullity.
In summary, Judge Reeder’s orders can be discounted and any and all future hearings should be retained on the docket regarding the formal motion to Transfer and Consolidate Civil Action No. 2022-68307.
RESPECTFULLY submitted this 21st day of July, 2023.
PLAINTIFF’s REQUEST FOR FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Originally Published: Jul 22, 2023 | Republished: Jul 22, 2023
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by Plaintiff, and as Rule 296 provides, any party may file a request for the trial court to state in writing its findings of fact and conclusions of law. TEX. R. CIV. P. 296. The request must be filed with the clerk within twenty days after the judgment is signed and must be served on all parties according to Rule 21a. TEX. R. CIV. P. 296. The clerk must immediately notify the trial court of the request. TEX. R. CIV. P. 296.
Rule 297 imposes a mandatory duty on the trial court to file properly requested findings of fact. TEX. R. CIV. P. 297. A court “shall file findings of fact and conclusions of law within twenty days after a timely request is filed.”. The court must also send a copy of the findings and conclusions to each party in the suit. TEX. R. CIV. P. 297.
Plaintiff now formally and timely requests compliance with this request for findings of fact and conclusions of law for the void ‘interlocutory’ order signed by Judge Lauren Reeder on July 19, 2023, image no. 109278161. The order contradicts the online docket which shows the case as disposed and the order is ‘final’.
RESPECTFULLY submitted this 22nd day of July, 2023.