Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Service Of Process Substitution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court hears unopposed substitution of counsel; orders amended substitute-service filing with process-server affidavit
Summary
In a May 27 hearing in the 201st District Court, Judge Amy Clark Meacham took under advisement an unopposed motion to substitute counsel for Clear Property Management LLC and directed counsel to email a proposed signed order to the court.
In a May 27 hearing in the 201st District Court, Judge Amy Clark Meacham took under advisement an unopposed motion to substitute counsel for Clear Property Management LLC and directed counsel to email a proposed signed order to the court. The judge also asked the moving party to refile and supplement an application for substitute service on third-party Falcon Patrol Protection LLC with process-server affidavits before she would sign an order allowing service by email.
Anna Greenberg appeared for the plaintiff; Caitlin Holscher appeared for defendant Menlo Mueller Austin Apartments; and Rhiannon Jodju appeared for Clear Property Management LLC, which sought substitution of counsel. Jodju said the motion to substitute counsel was unopposed. Judge Meacham instructed counsel to email the proposed order to 201201.submission@traviscountytx.gov and said the court would sign the substitution order if the filing conformed to requirements.
Separately, counsel for Menlo Mueller explained a pending third-party petition against Falcon Patrol Protection LLC and described five unsuccessful attempts at personal service on Falcon's registered agent, Adam Lee; one attempted phone contact produced an email address the agent said could be used while he was abroad. Counsel asked the court to allow substitute service by email under Rule 106(b) because personal service attempts were unsuccessful. Meacham said she needed the process-server affidavits documenting the attempts and asked counsel to refile an amended motion including those affidavits and a proposed order with the email address to be used.
The judge characterized the filing procedure as a submission matter and told counsel to copy all parties and submit through the court's portal so she could consider granting the request. She signaled willingness to grant the motion once the affidavit and proposed order were uploaded but did not sign an order during the hearing.
Ending: Counsel were excused after the court instructed them to email the substituted-counsel order and to refile an amended substitute-service motion with process-server affidavits and a proposed order; the court will act after it receives those documents.
