Jordan and Associates v. Lisa Wells

ACCEPTED
01-14-00992-cv
FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
4/28/2015 4:37:47 PM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE
CLERK

No. 01-14-00992-CV

In the First District Court of FILED IN
1st COURT OF APPEALS
Appeals at Houston HOUSTON, TEXAS
4/28/2015 4:37:47 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk
Jordan and Associates,
Appellant

Lisa Wells,
Appellee

Appeal from the 506th Judicial District Court
Grimes County, Texas, Hon. Albert McCaig, Presiding

APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME

Appellant moves for a 20-day extension of time to file its Reply Brief

so that its Brief is timely filed if filed on or before May 18, 2015.

1. The deadline to file Appellant’s Reply Brief is April 28, 2015.

Appellant has not sought a previous extension of this deadline.

2. Appellant requests a 20-day extension so that its Reply Brief is timely

filed if filed on or before May 18, 2015.

3. Appellant’s counsel conferred/attempted to confer with Appellee’s

counsel. Counsel for Appellant left a detailed voicemail regarding the

1
proposed 20-day extension of time to file Appellant’s Reply Brief. As of the

filing of this motion, Appellant has not received a response from counsel

for Appellee. As such, it is not known whether Appellee is opposed or

unopposed to the requested extension.

4. Facts Relied on to Reasonably Explain the Need for an Extension

Counsel for Appellant has begun the preparation of the Reply Brief in
earnest. However, Appellant’s counsel has been responsible for:

& Preparing the brief of Chasco, Inc. a/k/a
Chasco Interiors, Inc. which has two other
appellees, a lengthy and voluminous
appellate record, and a multitude of issues in
case number 05-14-00531-CV, styled Juan
Carlos Flores v. Chasco, Inc. a/k/a Chasco
Interiors, Inc., et. al., and pending in the Dallas
Court of Appeals;

& Preparing a motion and brief in the United
States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas – Dallas Division for failure to state a
cause of action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), and a summary
judgment motion and brief under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56 Rule in case
number 3:13-CV-03426-P, styled Onyx Wealth
Advisors, Inc. f/k/a Cambridge Legacy Advisors,
Inc., et. al. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Group, et. al.;

& Drafting, filing, and attending the hearing on
a motion for summary judgment filed in cause
number CC-14-00640-B, styled Staff Force, Inc.
v. Tekni-Plex, Inc. d/b/a Dolco Packaging, and
2
pending in the County Court at Law Number
2 of Dallas County, Texas;

& Preparing a motion for protection and a stay
as to discovery in arbitration proceeding
number 01-14-0001-4150, styled Tang Energy
group, Ltd. et. al., v. CATIC USA, Inc. et. al., and
pending before the American Arbitration
Association International Centre for Dispute
Resolution in New York, New York – with the
motion and brief filed under civil case number
3:14-CV-03314-K, styled Ascendant Renewable
Energy Corp. v. Tang Energy Group, Ltd., et. al.,
and pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas –
Dallas Division;

& Preparing and finalizing a response to a
motion for reconsideration in cause number
CC-11-07735-E, styled Alma Rosa Matias, et al.
v. Exco Operating Company, L.P. et. al., v. Exco
Resources, Inc., et. al., v. Basic Energy Services,
L.P., and pending in the County Court at Law
Number 5 for Dallas County; and

& Handling various personal and professional
responsibilities, including those attendant to
being the managing partner of Walters, Balido
& Crain, L.L.P.; and

5. These reasons constitute good cause to justify an extension of the

briefing deadline. A reasonable cause justifying an extension of time in this

context has been described as “any plausible statement of circumstances

indicating the failure to file within the [briefing] period was not deliberate
3
or intentional.” Hone v. Hanafin, 104 S.W.3d 884, 886 (Tex. 2003). The

unfortunate circumstances surrounding counsel’s practice demonstrates

that any failure to complete the Reply Brief on time was not deliberate or

intentional.

6. This Motion is not sought solely for delay but so that justice may be

served.

Wherefore, Appellant prays that the Court grant its requested 20-day

extension to file its Reply Brief so that the Court deems the Reply Brief

timely filed if filed on or before May 18, 2015, and for such other relief to

which it may be entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

___/s/Gregory R. Ave________
GREGORY R. AVE
State Bar No. 01448900
greg.ave@wbclawfirm.com
Walters, Balido & Crain, L.L.P.
Meadow Park Tower, Suite 1500
10440 N. Central Expressway
Dallas, Texas 75231

(214) 347-8310 – Telephone
(214) 347-8311 – Facsimile

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT JORDAN AND
ASSOCIATES
4
Certificate of Service

On April 28, 2015, I served Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time
on all counsel of record via e-service through the e-filing system.

__/s/Gregory R. Ave_____________
GREGORY R. AVE