ACCEPTED
01-15-00251-CV
FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
8/3/2015 3:25:51 PM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE
CLERK
No. 01-15-00251-CV FILED IN
_________________________________________________
1st COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
8/3/2015 3:25:51 PM
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk
FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
_________________________________________________
In re Texas State Silica Products Liability Litigation
__________________________________________________
Appeal from the 333rd Judicial District Court
of Harris County, Texas No. 2004-70000
__________________________________________________
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE APPELLEE’S BRIEF
________________________________________________________
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:
Appellees 1 ask that the time for filing Appellee’s Brief be extended until
thirty days after the Court rules on the Appellees’ pending Motion to Dismiss
Appeal and Motion to Strike Appellants’ Brief. Alternatively, Appellees ask that
the time for filing their Brief be extended until August 31, 2015. As required by
Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), Appellees submit the following:
1. The current deadline for filing Appellee’s Brief is July 31, 2015.
1
The list of Appellees joining in this Motion is contained in the Motion to Dismiss Appeal or, Alternatively, Motion
to Strike Appellants’ Brief filed on July 16, 2015.
1
2. Appellees request an extension of time to file their Brief until thirty days
after the Court rules on Appellees’ pending Motion to Dismiss Appeal and Motion
to Strike Brief. Alternatively, Appellees ask for an extension of time to file their
Brief of thirty-one days, until Monday, August 31, 2015.
3. Appellants filed their Brief on July 1, 2015. On July 16, 2015, Appellees
filed their Motion to Dismiss Appeal or, Alternatively, to Strike Plaintiffs’ Brief.
That motion included a request for extension of time to file Appellees’ Brief.
When Appellees had not received a ruling on the motion by July 31, the date
Appellees’ Brief was due, Appellees examined the Court’s electronic records and
determined that Appellees’ Motion had been docketed only as a motion to dismiss
the appeal. Therefore, Appellees are now filing a separate Motion to Strike
Appellants’ Brief as well as this separate Motion for Extension of Time to File
Appellees’ Brief.
4. This is a seriously-flawed appeal in which Appellants have shown no
respect for the jurisdiction of the Court or for the substantive and procedural rules
of briefing. Appellants have attempted to take an interlocutory appeal from an
order denying permanent injunctive relief. A court of appeals does not have
jurisdiction to consider the grant or denial of a permanent injunction through an
interlocutory appeal. See Delta Oilfield Services, Inc. v. Delta Int’l Service Co.,
1998 WL 767731, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.);
Brelsford v. Old Bridge Lake Community Serv. Corp., 784 S.W.2d 700, 702 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no writ); see also Young v. Golfing Green
Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc., 2012 WL 6685472, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no
pet.) (mem. op.) (“A summary judgment that fails to dispose of all claims, even if
it grants a permanent injunction, is interlocutory and unappealable”). Appellants’
Brief does not raise any issue about the MDL Court’s denial of injunctive relief.
Instead, Appellants’ Brief deals only with the merits of Appellants’ interlocutory
challenge, even though the MDL Court has never ruled on the merits of that claim.
5. Appellees should not be required to respond to a lengthy brief when the
Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal and Appellants’ Brief lacks any issue that
was properly preserved for appeal. Appellees therefore ask that the time for filing
their Brief be extended until after the Court has resolved the pending Motion to
Dismiss Appeal and Motion to Strike Appellants’ Brief. If, after those motions are
decided, there are any issues remaining before the Court, Appellees will file their
Brief within thirty days. Alternatively, Appellees ask that the deadline for filing
their Brief be extended for thirty-one days from the current date for filing the brief,
which will be Monday, August 31, 2015.
5. No previous extensions of time to file Appellees’ Brief have been
requested.
6. On August 3, 2015, Mike Martin, counsel for Appellants, informed
counsel for Appellees that Appellants oppose a stay of the briefing schedule until
after resolution of the pending motions, Appellants do not oppose an extension of
thirty days to file Appellants’ Brief.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellees ask that the time for filing Appellee’s
Brief be extended until thirty days after the Court rules on the Appellees’ pending
Motion to Dismiss Appeal and Motion to Strike Appellants’ Brief. Alternatively,
Appellees ask that the time for filing their Brief be extended until August 31, 2015.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kevin F. Risley______________________
Kevin F. Risley
State Bar No. 16941200
THOMPSON, COE, COUSINS & IRONS, L.L.P.
One Riverway, Suite 1400
Houston, Texas 77056
Telephone: 713.403.8295
Facsimile: 713.403.8299
Email: krisley@thompsoncoe.com
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE
3M COMPANY
ON BEHALF OF ALL
APPELLEES
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 3, 2015, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served pursuant to electronic service
Mike Martin
Maloney Martin, L.L.P.
3401 Allen Parkway, Suite 100
Houston, Texas 77019
Attorneys for Appellants
/s/ Kevin F. Risley___________
Kevin F. Risley
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that I conferred with Mr. Mike Martin, counsel for certain
Appellants, about the merits of the requested relief in this motion. Mr. Martin
opposes any extension of time to file Appellees’ Brief.
/s/ Kevin Risley
Kevin Risley