Case Information

*0 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/28/2015 4:37:47 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk *1 ACCEPTED 01-14-00992-cv FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/28/2015 4:37:47 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK No. 01-14-00992-CV In the First District Court of Appeals at Houston Jordan and Associates, Appellant V.

Lisa Wells, Appellee Appeal from the 506th Judicial District Court

Grimes County, Texas, Hon. Albert McCaig, Presiding APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Appellant moves for a 20-day extension of time to file its Reply Brief

so that its Brief is timely filed if filed on or before May 18, 2015.

1. The deadline to file Appellant’s Reply Brief is April 28, 2015.

Appellant has not sought a previous extension of this deadline.

2. Appellant requests a 20-day extension so that its Reply Brief is timely

filed if filed on or before May 18, 2015.

3. Appellant’s counsel conferred/attempted to confer with Appellee’s

counsel. Counsel for Appellant left a detailed voicemail regarding the

proposed 20-day extension of time to file Appellant’s Reply Brief. As of the

filing of this motion, Appellant has not received a response from counsel

for Appellee. As such, it is not known whether Appellee is opposed or

unopposed to the requested extension.

4. Facts Relied on to Reasonably Explain the Need for an Extension

Counsel for Appellant has begun the preparation of the Reply Brief in

earnest. However, Appellant’s counsel has been responsible for:

& Preparing the brief of Chasco, Inc. a/k/a

Chasco Interiors, Inc. which has two other

appellees, a lengthy and voluminous

appellate record, and a multitude of issues in

case number 05-14-00531-CV, styled Juan

Carlos Flores v. Chasco, Inc. a/k/a Chasco

Interiors, Inc., et. al. , and pending in the Dallas

Court of Appeals;

& Preparing a motion and brief in the United

States District Court for the Northern District

of Texas – Dallas Division for failure to state a

cause of action under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), and a summary

judgment motion and brief under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 56 Rule in case

number 3:13-CV-03426-P, styled Onyx Wealth

Advisors, Inc. f/k/a Cambridge Legacy Advisors,

Inc., et. al. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Group, et. al. ;

& Drafting, filing, and attending the hearing on

a motion for summary judgment filed in cause

number CC-14-00640-B, styled Staff Force, Inc.

v. Tekni-Plex, Inc. d/b/a Dolco Packaging , and

pending in the County Court at Law Number

2 of Dallas County, Texas;

& Preparing a motion for protection and a stay

as to discovery in arbitration proceeding

number 01-14-0001-4150, styled Tang Energy

group, Ltd. et. al., v. CATIC USA, Inc. et. al. , and

pending before the American Arbitration

Association International Centre for Dispute

Resolution in New York, New York – with the

motion and brief filed under civil case number

3:14-CV-03314-K, styled Ascendant Renewable

Energy Corp. v. Tang Energy Group, Ltd., et. al. ,

and pending in the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Texas –

Dallas Division;

& Preparing and finalizing a response to a

motion for reconsideration in cause number

CC-11-07735-E, styled Alma Rosa Matias, et al.

v. Exco Operating Company, L.P. et. al., v. Exco

Resources, Inc., et. al., v. Basic Energy Services,

L.P. , and pending in the County Court at Law

Number 5 for Dallas County; and

& Handling various personal and professional

responsibilities, including those attendant to

being the managing partner of Walters, Balido

& Crain, L.L.P.; and

5. These reasons constitute good cause to justify an extension of the

briefing deadline. A reasonable cause justifying an extension of time in this

context has been described as “any plausible statement of circumstances

indicating the failure to file within the [briefing] period was not deliberate

or intentional.” Hone v. Hanafin , 104 S.W.3d 884, 886 (Tex. 2003). The

unfortunate circumstances surrounding counsel’s practice demonstrates

that any failure to complete the Reply Brief on time was not deliberate or

intentional.

6. This Motion is not sought solely for delay but so that justice may be

served.

Wherefore, Appellant prays that the Court grant its requested 20-day

extension to file its Reply Brief so that the Court deems the Reply Brief

timely filed if filed on or before May 18, 2015, and for such other relief to

which it may be entitled.

Respectfully submitted, ___ /s/Gregory R. Ave ________ G REGORY R. A VE State Bar No. 01448900 greg.ave@wbclawfirm.com Walters, Balido & Crain, L.L.P. Meadow Park Tower, Suite 1500 10440 N. Central Expressway Dallas, Texas 75231 (214) 347-8310 – Telephone (214) 347-8311 – Facsimile C OUNSEL FOR A PPELLANT J ORDAN AND A SSOCIATES *5 Certificate of Service On April 28, 2015, I served Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time

on all counsel of record via e-service through the e-filing system.

__ /s/Gregory R. Ave _____________ G REGORY R. A VE