Chrisondath Badall v. Rukmin Durgapersad, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Ramdath Durgapersad, Susan Durgapersad, Reshma Durgapersad, and Rehka Durgapersad

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-13-00596-CV
Style: Chrisondath Badall
v. Rukmin Durgapersad
Date motion filed*: April 3, 2014
Type of motion: Motion to suspend requirement for additional copies of appellant’s brief
Party filing motion: Appellant
Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:
Original due date:
Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date:
Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted
If document is to be filed, document due:
 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time
 Denied
 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)
 Other: _____________________________________
In conjunction with his appellant’s brief, appellant filed a motion to suspend requirement for additional
copies of appellant’s brief, stating that appellant “is able to produce (2) copies of his appellate brief.”
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.3(a)(1) states: “If a document is not electronically filed, a party must
file the original and one unbound copy of the document . . . .” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.3(a)(1). Appellant has
complied with this rule by filing two hard copies of his appellant’s brief. Accordingly, we dismiss
appellant’s motion as moot.

Judge's signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes


Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: April 22, 2014

November 7, 2008 Revision