Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Poppingfun, Inc. v. Integracion De Marcas, S.A. de C.V.
Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
October 18, 2019
POPPINGFUN, INC., Appellant,
INTEGRACION DE MARCAS, S.A. DE C.V., Appellee.
appeal from the 131st District Court of Bexar County, Texas.
Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria
cause is before the Court after abatement and remand
regarding the timeliness of this appeal. The gravamen of the
issue before the Court concerns whether technical e-filing
problems caused the late filing of appellant's motion to
reconsider. Having received the trial court's order on
remand, supplemental records, and letter briefs from the
parties, we reinstate this appeal.
December 5, 2018, the trial court signed an order granting
summary judgment in favor of appellee. On January 7, 2019,
appellant filed a verified motion to reconsider the summary
judgment and a motion to deem its motion to reconsider timely
filed "due to technical difficulties with the Texas
efile website, which prevented the undersigned from filing
the motion for reconsideration on January 4, 2019."
See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(a). Appellant's
verified motion stated, in relevant part:
1. On the evening of January 4, 2019, the undersigned
attempted numerous times to file its motion for
reconsideration with Texas efile, which repeatedly failed
to allow POPPINGFUN to file the motion into the existing
case, cause no. 2018CI18028.
3. The undersigned followed the instructions as given on
the website for filing, i.e., all parties were re-entered,
including Plaintiff, as directed, but the website would not
allow the undersigned to proceed to the filing stage of the
4. The undersigned attempted to confirm the parties in
order to file, but the website kept discarding POPPINGFUN
as a party Defendant, and instead kept recording it as a
party Plaintiff, and still would not allow the undersigned
to file the motion.
5. The undersigned spent approximately 40 minutes
attempting to file its motion to reconsider in the existing
case before contacting a private vendor (My File Runner) to
ask its assistance with filing the motion. The
representative replied that if the undersigned was not
allowed to perform this function, they would not be able to
do it either, commenting that certain courts were not
enabled to file post-judgment motions electronically,
despite the directive to file court papers electronically.
6. The Texas Efile website recommended filing the
post-judgment motion as a new case if a court was not set
up to accept post-judgment motions in an existing but
disposed of case.
7. After trying a few more times to file the motion into
the existing case, the undersigned finally filed the motion
as a new matter, at approximately 8:53 PM, January 4, 2019,
approximately one hour after first logging on to file the
8. On Monday, January 7, 2019, the undersigned received
notice from the clerk of court that the filing had been
rejected as it was filed as a new case.
9. Having no way to correct the envelope to allow the
motion to remain as submitted on January 4, 2019, the
undersigned requested a detailed report from Texas Efile of
the various attempts to electronically file the motion, the
attempts to re-enter the parties as directed, and for a
showing not only of the lengthy amount of time the
undersigned tried unsuccessfully to file the motion into
the existing case under the correct event, but also the end
result that POPPINGFUN still came out designated as a
Plaintiff, along ...
Buy This Entire Record For