Case Information
*0 FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 10/24/2015 10:50:52 AM LISA MATZ Clerk *1 ACCEPTED 05-14-00040-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 10/26/2015 12:00:00 AM LISA MATZ CLERK CAUSE NO. 05-14-00040-CV IN THE INTEREST OF § IN THE COURT Of APPEALS
§
M.A.M. § FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT
§
A CHILD § AT DALLAS, TEXAS
APPELLANT’S MOTION OPPOSING APPELLEE’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES:
Motion in Opposition to Appellee’s Motion for Extension of Time to File
NOW COMES ESFANDIAR MAASOUMI, Appellant, and files this his Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing
. 1. INTRODUCTION Esfandiar Maasoumi, Appellant, is opposed to the Appellee’s Motion for
extension of time to file Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing. Appellee’s
deadline was October 23, 2015, the date of her filing motion for
extension.
Appellee’s counsel has a record of filing these gratuitous motions
intended purely for delay and to impede justice. She has cited the same
personal reasons related to alleged personal needs for repeated changes
to her office and firm engagements and changes.
2. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES *2 Appellee counsel “new” firm, O’Neil Wysocki, P.C., has a very active https://www.facebook.com/OneilWysocki. Ms.
“blog” and webpage, O’Neil has
posted at least two new blogs, on October 22, and October 28, for a total
of 2473, six single spaced pages, at the same time that the deadline clock
was running for this cause. Appellant objects to Appellee’s argument in
that her firm was formed on June 1, 2015. It has a total of six DR attorneys
and advertises itself to clients as providing the entire team of attorneys
to handle the client's case. In addition, Ms. Ashley Russell is still one of
the lead counsels in this cause. The Facebook page shows that they are
preparing for a Halloween Party! Appellee’s Motion does not set forth
facts that explain why an appeal decided against the Appellee on a single
issue needs more time.
Appellee’s Motion for Extension alleges she needs more time to
"review the record." The appeal decision turned on an undisputed fact--
that the failure to pay attorney's fees was the basis of the trial court's
dismissal. Appellee’s own Brief argued that the dismissal was for failure
to timely pay the attorney's fees. Any possible argument would be one of
law, such as “COA you are wrong in your opinion. Attorney's fees in
SAPCR modifications are ‘costs’."
A decision to deny this latest Motion for delay does not interfere
with Appellee’s ability to take its case to the Supreme Court.
Appellee’s Motion for extension and its arguments is part of a
pattern (at least two others filed before the setting of April 7, 2014).
3. Prayer Appellant urges This Honorable Court to deny Appellee’s Motion
for Extension of time.
(Contrary to Counsel’s signed certification, Appellant was not
consulted by Appellee prior to her latest motion for extension of time to
delay).
Respectfully Submitted, Esfandiar Maasoumi, pro se 1602 Fishburne Dr; 324 Atlanta, Ga, 30322.
emaasou@emory.edu CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true copy of ESFANDIAR MAASOUMI’S
MOTION TO OPPOSE APPELLEE’S Motion for Extension of
Time to File Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing was served on
MICHELLE O’NEIL, by e-mail on October 24, 2015.
________ ___________________ ESFANDIAR MAASOUMI, PRO SE
