Narrative Opinion Summary
In the matter concerning League City, the appellant has filed a second unopposed motion for a 21-day extension to submit its reply brief, initially due on January 20, 2016. This request is made pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b), citing counsel's involvement in other pressing legal matters, including obligations in the Supreme Court of Texas and the First Court of Appeals. The counsel for the appellee, represented by Dale Wainwright, has expressed no opposition to this extension, reflecting the non-contentious nature of the request. The appellant's legal representation from Mostyn Law Firm, including attorneys Gregory F. Cox, Jennifer Bruch Hogan, Richard P. Hogan, Jr., James C. Marrow, and Rene M. Sigman, has ensured compliance with procedural requirements by including a certificate of service. This document confirms that all necessary parties have been duly notified, with the motion dated December 22, 2015. The appellant asserts that the extension is sought not for purposes of delay, but to ensure justice is adequately served, and requests the court to grant this extension along with any other relief deemed appropriate.
Legal Issues Addressed
Certificate of Service Requirementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The motion includes a certificate of service as required, ensuring copies were sent to all counsel of record.
Reasoning: The document includes a certificate of service confirming that copies were sent to all counsel of record, both registered and unregistered with the Electronic Filing Service Provider.
Extension of Time to File Brief under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant, League City, seeks a 21-day extension to file its reply brief due to counsel's obligations in other legal matters, and the request is unopposed.
Reasoning: League City, the appellant, has submitted a second unopposed motion for a 21-day extension to file its reply brief, originally due on January 20, 2016.
Good Cause for Extension of Timesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's counsel cites existing obligations with other cases in the Supreme Court of Texas and the First Court of Appeals as good cause for the extension.
Reasoning: The request is made under TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), citing the necessity for additional time due to counsel's obligations with other urgent legal matters, including briefs and hearings in various cases in both the Supreme Court of Texas and the First Court of Appeals.
Non-Opposition to Motionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellee's counsel, on behalf of the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association (TWIA), does not oppose the motion for extension.
Reasoning: Counsel for the appellee, represented by Dale Wainwright, has indicated no opposition to the extension.