Summit Industrial Construction LLC v. Utica East Ohio Midstream, LLC. ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
01-15-00300-CV
FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
7/7/2015 9:43:48 AM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE
CLERK
Case No. 01-15-00300-CV
________________________________
FILED IN
1st COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICTHOUSTON,
OF TEXAS TEXAS
_________________________________ 7/7/2015 9:43:48 AM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
SUMMIT INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION L.L.C. Clerk
Appellant
v.
UTICA EAST OHIO MIDSTREAM L.L.C.
Appellee
_________________________________
On appeal from the 190th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas
The Honorable Patricia J. Kerrigan Presiding
_________________________________
APPELLANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S REPLY
BRIEF
_________________________________
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
Appellant Summit Industrial Construction L.L.C. (“Summit”) respectfully
requests an extension of time to file Reply Brief of Appellant, to which Appellee
Utica East Ohio Midstream L.L.C. (“Utica”) is not opposed.
1. Summit filed Brief of Appellant on May 12, 2015.
2. Utica filed Brief of Appellee on June 22, 2015.
3. Appellant’s Reply Brief is due July 13, 2015.
4. In accordance with Rules 38.6(d) and 10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure, Appellant seeks to extend the time for filing Reply Brief of
Appellant.
5. Appellant seeks an extension of twenty-one (21) days for filing Reply
Brief of Appellant, thereby extending the deadline to file the brief to August 3,
2015.
6. No previous extensions of time to file Reply Brief of Appellant have
been granted.
7. The preparation of Reply Brief of Appellant is a priority for counsel,
however due to significant commitments in other pending matters, counsel is
unable to give this matter adequate attention in order to properly research the
issues to be addressed in the reply brief. These commitments are difficult or
impossible to reschedule in the short time available. A twenty-one day extension
will make it possible for Summit to prepare a complete and concise reply that will
be useful to the Court.
8. Utica is not opposed to the request for extension of time.
PRAYER
For these reasons, Summit requests that this motion be granted, that the
Court extend the deadline to file Reply Brief of Appellant by twenty-one (21) days,
until August 3, 2015, and for any further relief at law and equity to which it may
show itself justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
FORD NASSEN & BALDWIN, P.C.
111 Congress Ave., Suite 1010
Austin, Texas 78701
512.236.0009 (telephone)
512.236.0682 (facsimile)
rcfisk@fordnassen.com
By: /s/ R. Carson Fisk
R. Carson Fisk
State Bar No. 24043659
Attorney for Appellant
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Pursuant to Rule 10.1(5) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, I hereby certify that
on July 6, 2015 I conferred with counsel for Appellee about the merits of this motion.
Counsel for Appellee does not oppose this motion.
By: /s/ R. Carson Fisk
R. Carson Fisk
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served
pursuant to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure via the electronic filing
manager, if the email address of the party or attorney to be served is on file with
the electronic filing manager, or via first class mail, if the email address of the
party or attorney to be served is not on file with the electronic filing manager to the
following person(s) on July 7, 2015:
Counsel for Utica East Ohio Midstream, L.L.C.
Scott D. Marrs, Andrew B. McGill, and Scott R. Davis
Beirne Maynard and Parsons L.L.P.
1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2500
Houston, Texas 77056
By: /s/ R. Carson Fisk
R. Carson Fisk