Jose "Joe" Hinojosa v. Firefighters & Police Officers' Civil Service Commission of the City of Laredo, Texas Irma Mireles, Vidal Cantu, Jr. & Jesus Torres

ACCEPTED
04-15-00414-CV
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
11/6/2015 11:35:04 PM
KEITH HOTTLE
CLERK
No. 04-15-00414-CV
__________________________________________________________________
FILED IN
4th COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
COURT OF APPEALS 11/6/2015 11:35:04 PM
FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS KEITH E. HOTTLE
Clerk
__________________________________________________________________
JOSE (JOE) HINOJOSA
Appellant
v.
FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAREDO, et. Al.
Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND TO SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL
__________________________________________________________________
Jose HinoJosa, Appellant requests this Court to extend the time to file a motion
for rehearing and to substitute new appellate counsel and shows:
1. This motion is filed on Friday, November 6, 2015, fifteen days after the last
date to file a motion for rehearing, October 22, 2015.
2. This Court has the authority to grant such extensions, Rule 49.8 Tex. Rule App.
Proc., Stagel v. Parker, 945 S.W.2d 114, 114 (Tex. 1997).
3. Appellant seeks an extension to Monday, November 9, 2015 in order to file his
motion for rehearing.
Page -1-
4. No previous extensions have bee granted.
5. A reasonable explanation for this extension as follows. Appellant attempted
to seek his remedy by mandamus in this and the Texas Supreme Court. Both petitions
were denied. This appeal was perfected. However, a disagreement arose between
Appellant and his appellate counsel, Mr. Murry Malakoff. This disagreement covered
the costs as well as other matter. Mr. Malakoff sought to withdraw from the appeal.
This Court denied that motion. On October 22, 2015, the Court of Appeals dismissed
that appeal for non-prosecution, to wit, the clerk’s record. This case was tried in
district court below on an agreed fact statement. No court reporter was necessary.
The merits of this appeal revolve on a question of law. New counsel, Mr. Bruce W.
Cobb, with permission of Mr. Malakoff contacted Appellant through his union
representative. New counsel was informed that Hinjosa would welcome Mr. Cobbs
assistance with this appeal. Mr. Cobb was not able to get in the case earlier becuase
of the conflict between Mr. Hinojosa and Mr. Malakoff. Mr. Cobb wants to make a
new designation of the clerk’s record which is a lot less expensive and to xcontinue
the appeal. If that is done, this case may be ready to be submitted within sixty (60)
day. Mr. Hinojosa would request this Court to relieve Mr. Malakoff from any further
representation and give Mr. Cobb a chance to assist him in this appeal.
6. For some reason, new counsel has not been able to contact opposing counsel.
Page -2-
New counsel does not know whether this motion for extension will be opposed.
WHEREFORE, Appellant Jose Hinojosa, Appellant moves for an extension of
time to file a motion for rehearing and to substitute new appellate counsel.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Bruce W. Cobb
Bruce W. Cobb
Texas Bar No. 04431900
3280 Delaware
Beaumont, Texas 77703
Office: (409) 899-3360
Fax: (409) 899-3372
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
On November 6, 2015, I certify that I attempted to contact Mr. Ryan S. Henry,
counsel for the Appellees, but could not make contact. I donot know if he opposes
the extension.
/s/ Bruce W. Cobb
Bruce W. Cobb
Page -3-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify on this 6th day of November, 2015; I served a true copy of the
Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time by Tex E-File.
/s/ Bruce W. Cobb
Bruce W. Cobb
Page -4-