Narrative Opinion Summary
On August 13, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas addressed the appellants, Gena Marcella Mercadante et al., who filed a third motion for an extension of time to submit their brief. The appellee, ZLH LC, Inc. (formerly Zale Lipshy University Hospital, Inc.), opposed this motion. The Court had previously granted a second extension on July 9, 2014, noting that no further extensions would be allowed without extraordinary circumstances. The appellants requested the extension citing a medical condition, which the Court ultimately denied. Instead, the Court mandated that the appellants must file their brief by September 2, 2014, warning that failure to do so could result in the dismissal of their appeal for lack of prosecution, in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1).
Legal Issues Addressed
Conditions for Granting Extensionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court had previously granted a second extension with a clear stipulation that no further extensions would be allowed unless extraordinary circumstances were demonstrated by the appellants.
Reasoning: The Court had previously granted a second extension on July 9, 2014, noting that no further extensions would be allowed without extraordinary circumstances.
Consequences of Failing to File Briefs Timelysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court warned the appellants that failing to file their brief by the specified deadline could lead to the dismissal of their appeal for lack of prosecution, in accordance with procedural rules.
Reasoning: The Court mandated that the appellants must file their brief by September 2, 2014, warning that failure to do so could result in the dismissal of their appeal for lack of prosecution, in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1).
Extensions of Time for Filing Briefssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellants' request for a third extension of time to file their brief was denied by the court despite a cited medical condition, emphasizing the court's discretion in granting extensions only under extraordinary circumstances.
Reasoning: The appellants requested the extension citing a medical condition, which the Court ultimately denied.