in Re George Green and Garlan Green ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               ACCEPTED
    03-14-00725-CV
    4260131
    THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
    AUSTIN, TEXAS
    2/24/2015 12:27:25 PM
    JEFFREY D. KYLE
    CLERK
    NO. 03-14-00725-CV
    FILED IN
    3rd COURT OF APPEALS
    IN THE                       AUSTIN, TEXAS
    THIRD COURT OF APPEALS          2/24/2015 12:27:25 PM
    AUSTIN, TEXAS                  JEFFREY D. KYLE
    Clerk
    GEORGE GREEN
    Appellant
    VS.
    PORT OF CALL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, RANDOLPH HARIG,
    PHILLIP JACOBS, JOHN ROSS BUCHHOLTZ AND
    RICHARD PAT MCELROY
    Appellees
    On Appeal from the
    RD
    33 DISTRICT COURT
    of LLANO COUNTY, TEXAS
    APPELLEES’ SECOND AGREED MOTION TO EXTEND
    TIME TO FILE BRIEF
    TO THE HONORABLE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS:
    NOW COME PORT OF CALL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
    RANDOLPH HARIG, PHILLIP JACOBS, JOHN ROSS BUCHHOLTZ AND
    RICHARD PAT MCELROY (“Appellees”), filing their Second Motion to Extend
    Time to File Brief1, and would show unto this Court as follows:
    A.
    PARTIES
    1.       Appellant Garlan Green was a member of the Port of Call Homeowners
    Association (HOA). Garlan Green has passed away.
    2.       Appellant George Green is Garlan’s son and has represented him in this suit
    by a Power of Attorney. (CR 136).
    3.       Appellees are the HOA and individual board members.
    B.
    INTRODUCTION
    4.       While subject to further discovery, the case involves claims against the
    Appellees claiming they violated the organizational documents of the
    Homeowners’ Association for breach of contract, the Property Code, and a breach
    of fiduciary duty. Appellants seeking review of an order they claim to be an
    injunction filed this Appeal. They base the appeal on §51.014(a)(4) and Chapter
    65 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Appellees understand the
    Order from which Appellants sought relief is a discovery sanction. Wood v
    Moriarty, 
    940 S.W.2d 359
    (Tex. App—Dallas, 1997, no pet.)
    1
    The first extension was not opposed.
    -2-
    C.
    PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    5.       In the trial court, a motion was filed by the Appellees seeking protection
    from Appellant George Green’s discovery actions. (CR 114-130) After an order
    for protection was granted, Appellant George Green continued conduct Appellees
    believed subject to the order of protection.            Thus, Appellees filed a Motion to
    Enforce the Order. (CR 153) A hearing was held on that Motion on October 14,
    2014. (CR 175) The Judge granted the Motion to Enforce the Protective Order and
    entered an Order on October 21, 2014. (CR 175)2 That is the order that is the
    subject of this appeal.
    6.       Subsequently, the trial court held a hearing about the scope of the order
    appealed and vacated that order.
    7.       As a result of the trial court’s action, Appellees have filed a Motion to
    Dismiss the case because the order is moot.
    8.       The Appellant has responded.
    D.
    EXTENSION OF DATE TO FILE BRIEF REQUESTED
    9.       Parties previously agreed to an extension of Appellees’ deadline to file their
    Brief.
    2
    A copy of that Order was also attached to Appellant’s Docketing Statement.
    -3-
    10.   Since that order, Appellees have filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal
    because of mootness as noted above.
    11.   The Parties have agreed to a two-week extension on the deadline for
    Appellees to file a responsive brief from the time the Motion to Dismiss is ruled on
    by the Court.
    12.   Under these circumstances, Appellees pray the Court grant this Motion and
    extend their deadline to file their brief until two-weeks after the Motion to Dismiss
    is ruled on by the Court.
    E.
    CONCLUSION
    WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellees pray that the Court
    of Appeals for the Third District of Texas at Austin extend the deadline for filing
    of Appellees’ brief for two-weeks after the motion is ruled on and further pray for
    further relief that they may be justly entitled to at law or in equity.
    -4-
    Respectfully submitted,
    WRIGHT & GREENHILL, P.C.
    221 W. 6th Street, Suite 1800
    Austin, Texas 78701
    512/476-4600
    512/476-5382 (Fax)
    rpringle@w-g.com
    hcoughlin@w-g.com
    mthompson@w-g.com
    /s/ Mike Thompson, Jr.
    By:
    Brantley Ross Pringle, Jr.
    State Bar No. 16330001
    Heidi A. Coughlin
    State Bar No. 24059615
    Mike Thompson, Jr.
    State Bar No. 19898200
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
    PORT OF CALL HOMEOWNERS
    ASSOCIATION, RANDOLPH
    HARIG, PHILLIP JACOBS, JOHN
    ROSS BUCHHOLTZ AND RICHARD
    PAT MCELROY
    CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
    Appellant agrees to a two-week extension for Appellees to file their brief
    from the time the Motion To Dismiss is decided.
    NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
    The undersigned counsel certifies that on the 24th day of February, 2015, he
    has electronically filed the foregoing document with the Third Court of Appeals
    Austin, Texas, Clerk’s Office using the electronic filing system through ProDoc
    efiling2 and counsel will send notification of such filing to Mr. David Junkin and
    Mr. L. Hayes Fuller, III.
    -5-
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has
    been served on the following via facsimile, in accordance with the Texas Rules of
    Civil Procedure, on this 24th day of February, 2015.
    David Junkin
    LAW OFFICE OF DAVID JUNKIN
    P. O. Box 2910
    Wimberley, TX 78676
    L. Hayes Fuller, III
    NAMAN HOWELL SMITH & LEE, P.L.L.C
    400 Austin Avenue, Suite 800
    P. O. Box 1470
    Waco, TX 75703-1470
    /s/ Mike Thompson, Jr.
    Brantley Ross Pringle, Jr.
    Heidi Coughlin
    Mike Thompson, Jr.
    -6-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-14-00725-CV

Filed Date: 2/24/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/28/2016