Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-17-00688-CV Jose CORRO and Concepcion Corro, Appellants v. Andres PEREZ, Perez & Malik, PLLC and Adriana Medrano of Perez & Malik, Appellees From the 38th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas Trial Court No. 16-06-23689-CV Honorable H. Paul Canales, Judge Presiding 1 Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 19, 2018 AFFIRMED This is an appeal from the granting of a motion for no-evidence summary judgment disposing of claims asserted by a pro se litigant on behalf of himself and his mother. Appellants assert that the trial court abused its discretion by striking summary judgment evidence and by denying their motions for a continuance, to subpoena certain prison records, and to appoint counsel for Concepcion Corro. They further assert that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. We affirm. 1 The Honorable H. Paul Canales presided over the underlying case by assignment. 04-17-00688-CV Facts Appellant Jose Corro is incarcerated. In October 2014, he wrote to appellee Andres Perez, of the law firm Perez & Malik, P.L.L.C., inquiring whether Perez handled parole matters in addition to his immigration practice. If so, Corro stated that he needed Perez’s help because he had been repeatedly denied parole and believed one reason was because of his immigration status. 2 Corro wrote to Perez again in January 2015, stating that he was trying to retain Perez to represent him in his parole and immigration matters. Corro expressly stated that he chose Perez because Perez could represent him in both matters and Corro could not afford to retain two separate attorneys. Because of Corro’s incarceration, Perez met instead with Corro’s mother, appellant Concepcion Corro. Corro alleges that Perez told his mother that he would represent Corro in the parole matter as well as the immigration matter. Perez denies that he ever agreed to represent Corro in the parole matter. In February 2015, Concepcion signed a fee agreement providing that Perez would represent Corro for “GENL: N600 (certif. of citizensh.)” for the fee of $2000. The fee agreement makes no mention of parole. In March 2015, Corro wrote to appellee Adriana Medrano, Perez’s paralegal. Medrano had informed Corro that she would be assisting with his “case,” and Corro wanted to know whether that meant she was assisting with his parole case or his immigration case or both. He explained that he had retained Perez based on the law firm’s assurance to his mother that it handled parole hearings. In April 2015, Corro again wrote to Medrano, asking for clarification of Perez’s representation. He reiterated that he hired Perez because Perez could represent him in both the 2 Corro also candidly admitted that another reason for his parole denials was “of course my criminal history.” -2- 04-17-00688-CV parole matter and the immigration matter, and that Corro could not afford to hire two separate attorneys. He then noted that the law firm had informed ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals