Adrienne Gallien v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Cristobal Nino, Individually and as of the Estate of Veronica Castillo Nino and Kathy Orsak

Summarize
Check Treatment

Related Cases

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON ORDER Appellate case name: Adrienne Gallien v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Cristobal Nino, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Veronica Castillo Nino and Kathy Orsak Appellate case number: 01-17-00385-CV Trial court case number: 2015-75452 Trial court: 157th District Court of Harris County On May 24, 2017, appellant filed an omnibus motion for “Extension of Time to File Accelerated Appeal,” to “Suspend or Void Order of the Trial Court to Protect the Res,” and for “Review of Further Orders.” The extension of time previously was granted, and the remaining motions were carried with the case. The remainder of relief requested in this omnibus motion is now DENIED. Appellant’s “Motion for Leave to File Petition for Original Injunction and Petition for Emergency Relief,” filed June 14, 2017 (and as supplemented on June 15 and 16), is GRANTED IN PART. To the extent the motion requested leave to file, leave is GRANTED. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED. Appellant’s “Motion for Reconsideration of Emergency Relief Including Request for Guidance in Filing Out of County District Clerk Record, Consolidation of Appeal or Alternatively Dismissal of Related Appeal and Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Brief,” filed July 28, 2017, is GRANTED IN PART. The deadline for filing the appellant’s brief is extended by 20 days, and shall be due August 21, 2017. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED. Appellant’s “Motion for Stay Pending Mandamus,” filed August 1, 2017, is DENIED. It appears from the face of the appellate record that this interlocutory appeal (or, alternatively, petition for mandamus) challenging the trial court’s April 21, 2017 “Temporary Injunction” order may be moot. To the extent appellees contend this proceeding is moot, they are invited to file a motion for involuntary dismissal that affirmatively demonstrates mootness. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). To the extent appellant contends that the proceeding is not moot, she is notified that the court may dismiss this proceeding as moot unless she demonstrates a live controversy relating to the challenged April 21, 2017 order of the district court. See id. Any such response from appellant must be filed no later than August 14, 2017. It is so ORDERED. Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale  Acting individually  Acting for the Court Date: August 4, 2017