Professional Experience

​
 

• Tex. P.M.R., Inc. v. Ripley, 04-19-00229-CV, 2019 WL 6887718 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 18, 2019, no pet.) (affirming the denial of a temporary injunction seeking to enjoin any purported officers or directors of the corporation from taking certain specified actions).

• In the Interest of A.V.T., No. 04-19-00544-CV, 2021 WL 1199054 (Tex. App. -- San Antonio March 31, 2021, no pet.) (reversing trial court's child support orders because Father was not given notice of the additional uninsured medical or healthcare expenses for which Mother sought reimbursement at the hearing, because the trial court relied on both the lump sum payment of $100,000.00 and monthly resources in the amount of $1,070.00 in determining that Father had monthly net resources in the amount of $9,904.00, and because the trial court based its child support order on an amount ($1,070.00) for which there was no evidence presented at the hearing).I

• In the Interest of M.T., 04-19-00589-CV, 2020 WL 4808708 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 19, 2020, no pet.) (affirming trial court's grant to Father the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the parties' child within 300 miles of Eagle Pass, Texas).

• Leijas v. Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas, et al, No. DR-18-CV-043-AM, In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Del Rio Division (holding that the Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply and the Tribal court had no jurisdiction over SAPCR in which state district court already had jurisdiction).

• In the Estate of Patricia M. Ripley, Deceased,  No. 04-18-00968-CV, in the Fourth Court of Appeals (affirming determination of heirship ten years after decedent's death, holding that the residual limitations period had only ever applied in cases where there had been a prior administration).

• Bustos v. Bexar Appraisal Dist., No. 04-17-00552-CV, 2018 WL 2222615, at *4 (Tex. App.--San Antonio May 16, 2018, no pet.) (affirming dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).

• Kahn v. Ripley, No. 5:17-CV-784-OLG, 2018 WL 3342887, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2018) (granting defendant's motion to dismiss).

• Shopoff Advisors, L.P. v. Atrium Circle, GP, No. 04-17-00241-CV, 2018 WL 280473 (Tex. App.-- San Antonio Jan. 3, 2018, no pet.) (affirming trial court's confirmation of arbitration award).

• In re Estate of Johnnie Mae King, No. 04–15–00271–CV, 2016 WL 3625663 (Tex. App. – San Antonio July 6, 2016, no pet.) (affirming dismissal for lack of jurisdiction).

• Kahn v. Helvetia Asset Recovery, 475 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2015, pet. denied) (dismissing appeal for lack of standing and jurisdiction).

• Hill Country San Antonio Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Trejo, 424 S.W.3d 203 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2014, no pet.)(affirming denial of dismissal motion because adult day-care facility was not a “health care provider” under TMLA and claim did not implicate standards associated with medical care of participant or assert a breach of such standards, as necessary to fall within TMLA’s definition of a “health care liability claim” (HCLC) requiring timely filing of expert report).

• Guillermo Benavides Garza Inv. Co. v. Benavides, No. 04-13-00453-CV, 2014 WL 3339555 (Tex. App. – San Antonio July 9, 2014, no pet.)(reversing temporary injunction due to absence of evidence of irreparable harm).

• In re Estate of Check, 438 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, no pet.)(affirming refusal to grant motion to dismiss counterclaim pursuant to anti-SLAPP statute because motion was untimely).

• Garza v. Deleon, No. 13-13-00342-CV, 2013 WL 6730177, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Dec. 19, 2013, no pet.)(affirming denial of dismissal motion in medical malpractice case because expert report was adequate).

• In re Rubiola, 334 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding) (holding that Claims by purchasers against vendors and listing agent regarding repairs of home at issue fell within arbitration agreement in financing agreement between purchasers and mortgagee, where listing agent and vendors were non-signatory parties to arbitration agreement, agreement broadly covered all controversies, including real estate sales contract and complaint regarding sale, and sales contract stated that it could be amended by later writing and arbitration agreement at issue was executed one month later).

• Rio Grande Reg’l Hosp., Inc. v. Villarreal, 329 S.W.3d 594 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 2010), judgment vacated, cause dismissed (Aug. 30, 2013)(affirming jury verdict in favor of survivors of hospital patient who committed suicide in hospital and sued hospital for medical malpractice and wrongful death claims holding that the suicide was foreseeable and the hospital employees caused his suicide).

• Padre Behavioral Health Sys., LLC v. Chaney, 310 S.W.3d 78 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 2010, no pet.)(affirming denial of motion to dismiss for late expert report; statutory 120–day period for patient’s estate to file expert reports was triggered by the first-filed petition naming the defendant physician).

• Ray v. Bexar Appraisal Dist., No. 04-08-00210-CV, 2009 WL 700869 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2009, no pet.) (plaintiff did not have proper standing to challenge a county district’s ad valorem property tax valuation of real property when he was not the owner of the property)

• Office of the Atty. Gen. of Texas v. Kalenkosky, No. 04-09-00762-CV, 2011 WL 1499419 (Tex. App. –San Antonio Apr. 20, 2011, no pet.) (affirming $14,000 award of sanctions against the attorney general’s office for filing a frivolous child support collection action).

• Harris Cnty. v. Proler, 29 S.W.3d 646 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.)(holding that fee imposed by comptroller was not tax and so plaintiff was not required to follow Tax Code refund procedures).

• Cappetta v. Hermes, 222 S.W.3d 160 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2006, no pet.)(reversing dismissal for want of prosecution, holding standard for reinstatement applies to all dismissals for want of prosecution whether rule based or inherent power based).

• In re Estate of Friesenhahn, 185 S.W.3d 16 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2005, no pet.)(holding that will was not contractual will and thus devised property to widow in fee simple).