William H. Scurlock v. John M. Hubbard, 06-15-00014-CV

Appellant William H. Scurlock appeals an order placing Pecan Point Brewing Company under a receivership and injunction, alleging the receivership is wrongful and is impairing his management rights.
Scurlock filed his appellant brief on March 19, 2015; appellee John M. Hubbard’s brief was due April 9, 2015.
Hubbard moved for dismissal of the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction and then sought an extension to file his appellee brief, citing the pending jurisdictional motion.
Scurlock opposed the extension (or alternatively asked the court to limit any extension to seven days) asserting the appellee provided an insufficient reason for delay and that continued receivership causes ongoing harm.
Hubbard alternatively moved to abate the appeal so the trial court could consider a motion to modify/reform the judgment; Scurlock argued abatement defeats the purpose of the accelerated appeal and is not supported by the rules for accelerated appeals.
Scurlock separately moved to give the appeal precedence under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.1(a) and 40.1(c) due to the continued injury from the receivership.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to extend time for appellee brief	Extension should be denied or limited to 7 days because appellee gave insufficient reason and delay prolongs wrongful receivership	Appellee seeks extension because his pending motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction requires the court's attention	Court is asked to deny extension or limit to 7 days (Scurlock’s requested relief)
Sufficiency of excuse for extension	Appellee’s stated reason (pending jurisdictional motion) is insufficient to justify delay	Appellee contends the pending motion justifies additional time	Scurlock argues controlling authority permits denial when explanation is insufficient; court requested to follow those precedents
Motion to abate appeal	Abatement should be denied because accelerated-appeal timetable is not extended by postjudgment motions and abatement would defeat need for speedy resolution	Appellee requests abatement so trial court can consider motion to modify judgment	Scurlock asks court to deny abatement, citing rules and accelerated-appeal policy
Motion to give appeal precedence	Appeal should be given precedence due to ongoing injury from receivership and rule permitting priority	Implicit: appellee’s procedural requests would delay priority resolution	Scurlock requests precedence so the court can decide as soon as possible

Hykonnen v. Baker Hughes Bus. Support Services, 93 S.W.3d 562 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (court may deny extension when explanation for delay is insufficient)
Simon v. Dillard's, Inc., 86 S.W.3d 798 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002) (same)
Chilkewitz v. Winter, 25 S.W.3d 382 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000) (same)
Kidd v. Paxton, 1 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999) (same)
Weik v. Second Baptist Church of Houston, 988 S.W.2d 437 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) (same)
Velasquez v. Harrison, 934 S.W.2d 767 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996) (same)
Furr v. Furr, 721 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1986) (same)
Dawson v. First Cont'l Real Estate Inv. Trust, 590 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1979) (same)