Christopher Boehringer and Enginuity Engineering, Inc. v. Mark A. Konkel

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ’ FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON ORDER Cause No. 01-11-00702-CV; Boehringer v. Konkel On Appeal from the 61 st Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2009-11255 Appellee has filed an unopposed motion to reschedule oral argument and has asked for an argument date in 2013 We note that in their brief, Appellants stated that they believed counsel could do an adequate job without oral argument and asked for oral argument only if granted to Appellee. Under the circumstances, the Court has decided to hear the case on submission without oral argument. If either party objects or desires to respond with a motxon arguing that the case should not be decided without oral argument, the Court will entertain that motion. See TEX. R. APP. P 39.1 It is so ORDERED. Judge’s s gnature: /s/Terry Jennings I--¢1 Acting individually Acting for the Court Do not publish. TEX. R. APe. P 47.2(b). Date: November 8, 2012 Absent emergency or a statement that the motion is unopposed, must wait ten days before acting on motion except for motion to extend time to file a brief. See TEX. R. App. P. 10.3(a). Note: Single justice may grant or deny any request for relief properly sought by motion, except m a civil case a single justice should not: (1) act on a petition for an extraordinary writ or (2) dismiss or otherwise determine an appeal or a motion for rehearing. TI~x. R. APp. P. 10.4(a). 1