Case Information
*1 IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-15-00037-CV CHIEFTAIN EXPLORATION COMPANY, INC.,
Appellant v.
GASTAR EXPLORATION LTD., & GASTAR
EXPLORATION TEXAS, LP, AND CUBIC
ASSETS, LLC,
Appellee From the 369th District Court Leon County, Texas Trial Court No. NOT-13-126 O R D E R
Gastar Exploration, LTD and Gastar Exploration Texas, L.P. (collectively referred
to as Gastar) and Chieftain Exploration Company, Inc. both filed notices of appeal in this proceeding. Chieftain filed first. Chieftain also has appealed against another party, Cubic Assets, LLC.
Gastar complains in a motion to strike Chieftain’s latest reply brief that Chieftain has exceeded the aggregate word limit of Rule 9.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(2)(B) (“In a civil case in the court of appeals, the aggregate of all briefs filed by a party must not exceed 27,000 words if computer generated….”). Chieftain contends that it has not exceeded the word limit and if it has, it has asked, in a separate motion, for leave to exceed the word limit.
Chieftain is both an appellant and an appellee. Gastar is both an appellant and an appellee. The Rules of Appellate Procedure generally contemplate only one party on each side in an appeal. There is little guidance on how to address word count in briefs when there are multiple notices of appeal filed from one trial court judgment. Nevertheless, after computing the total of the word counts listed in Chieftain’s briefs in the capacity as an appellant, we find that Chieftain has exceeded the word limit of Rule 9.4(i)(2)(B).
Rather than striking any of Chieftain’s briefs or ordering Chieftain to re-brief its issues and responses to comply with the word limit, we grant Chieftain’s Motion for Leave to Exceed Word Count. However, no additional briefing may be filed by Chieftain except as requested by this Court.
Further, Gastar’s Motion to Strike Reply Brief is denied.
PER CURIAM *3 Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Motion for leave granted
Motion to strike denied
Order issued and filed October 15, 2015
