ACCEPTED
04-14-00655-CV
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
1/8/2015 4:53:51 PM
KEITH HOTTLE
CLERK
NO. 04-14-00655-CV
IVARENE HOSEK AND VICTOR § IN THE FOURTH
HOSEK, § FILED IN
4th COURT OF APPEALS
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
Appellants, g
01/8/2015 4:53:51 PM
v. E COURT
KEITHOFE. APPEALS
HOTTLE
Clerk
ROSALE SCOTT, g
Appellee. SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
APPELLEE’S RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS’ MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANTS’ BRIEF
Appellee ROSALE SCOTT files this Response to Appellants’ Motion for Extension of
Time to File Appellants’ Brief and in suppoit thereof, respectfully shows the Court as follows:
1. Normally, Appellee’s counsel does not oppose extensions, but Ms. Chi1nene’s
well—established pattern of unreasonable delays should factor into the Court’s limiting this
extension to no more than thirty (30) days.
2. Appellants’ Brief was due on January 7, 2015. Rather than file their request to
extend their deadline in advance, Appellants decided to serve their 60-day Motion for Extension
of Time to File Appellants’ Brief (“the Motion”) on January 7, 2015, the date their brief was due.
3. First, summary judgment was granted in this case on or about March 3, 2014. See
CR 147-149. A finaljudgment was filed in this case on or about June 19, 2014. See C.R. 2I0—
215 (Final Judgment). Accordingly, it has been over ten months since summary judgment was
granted in this case and nearly seven months since the trial court issued a Final Judgment.
Appellants’ argument that “Counsel has begun research” in this case, is simply inadequate. See
the Motion atp. 2.
4. Second, Appellants have already had their time for filing a brief automatically
extended by the filing of post-trial motions. Following the final judgment, Appellants filed a
Motion for New Trial, which they never even set for hearing. See CR 248-250. The obvious
basis that they filed the Motion for New Trial, was to extend their deadlines.
5. Third, Appellants have had their time for filing a brief extended by their delays in
securing the Reporters’ Record. The Appellate record was due to be filed by October 17, 2014.
See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. However, the Court received Notice of a late filed Record. See
Fourth Court Correspondence dated October 21, 2014, Court File. The Court granted an
extension on the filing of the Reporters’ Record until December 1, 2014. See Court Order dated
October 29, 2014, Court File. Appellants’ deadlines were further extended because the
Reporters’ Record was not filed on the extended deadline but was instead filed on December 8,
2014. See Fourth Court Correspondence dated December 8, 2014, Court File. Accordingly,
Appellants automatically received approximately a seven week extension because of the delays
in the filing of the Reporters’ Record.
6. Finally, it is important to note that Appellants are not being prejudiced by their
delay because Appellants are receiving royalty payments during the appeal. In fact, they have
received nearly $195,000.00 in royalties between January and November 2014. See Affidavit of
Ivarene Hosek at p. 2 attached to Appellants’ Reply in Opposition to Increasing Supersedeas
Bond, Court File. Scott, who prevailed on summary judgment over ten months ago, has not
received any royalties.
7. Appellants have had an adequate amount of time in which to research and file
their brief. It has been over ten months since summary judgment was granted and nearly seven
months since a final judgment was entered. A sixty day extension would result in the
Appellants’ initial brief being filed approximately a year after the trial COUIT initially granted
summary judgment. Moreover, Appellants continue to receive royalties during the appeal
whereas Scott, who has been determined to own fifty percent of the minerals under the Property
in question, is not receiving any royalties. Accordingly, Appellants request for a sixty day
extension should be denied and at most, this Court should permit Appellants an additional thirty
days in which to file their brief.
BARTON, EAST & CALDWELL, P.L.L.C.
One Riverwalk Place, Suite 1825
700 N. St. Mary’s Street
San Antonio, Texas 78205
Telephone: (210)225-1655
Facsimile: (210) 225-8999
By: /s/ WADE CALDWELL
G.
G. WADE CALDWELL
StateBar No. 03621020
Email: gcaldwell@beclaw.c01n
RAQUEL G. PEREZ
StateBar No. 00784746
Email: rperez@beclaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document will be served in the manner
indicated below this 8th day of January, 2015 upon the following:
Michele Barber Chimene
The Chimene Law Firm
15203 Newfleld Bridge Ln.
___
__ First Class Mail
Facsimile
Hand Delivery
Sugar Land, TX 77498 J; Electronic Transmission
Email: michelec@ai1"mail.net
Robert J Ogle .
Attorney at Law
__ First Class
Facsimile
Mail
508 E. San Antonio Street
Boerne, Texas 78006
Facsimile: (830) 249-8508
_
A
_W Hand Delivery
Electronic Transmission
Email: bob@ogleattorney.com
Counsel for Appellants
/s/ G. WADE CALDWELL
G. WADE CALDWELL
ILAQUEL G. PEREZ
M:\2000\2200 OIL AND GAS CLl'ENTS\l2l Hosck V ScoII\4TH COA APl’EAL\Pleadings\Appcllc‘s Response to Appellants’ Molion for
Extension ofTime to File Appellants’ Briefidocx