Narrative Opinion Summary
In the appellate case involving Jetall Companies, Inc. as the appellee, and Don Abbott Holmes, Gayle Eisler Holmes, and their Community Property Estate as the appellants, Jetall seeks a second extension to file its Appellee’s Brief. The initial filing deadline was October 9, 2015, and Jetall requests an additional 30 days, extending to November 9, 2015. This motion is made prior to the existing deadline, with the appellants' counsel agreeing to the extension. The request is supported by challenges Jetall faces in securing qualified appellate counsel and the unavailability of its decision-maker due to urgent international travel. Jetall cites Rule 38.6(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure as the basis for its request, noting that a similar extension had previously been granted for the appellants' brief. The motion is accompanied by a certificate of conference showing the appellants' counsel's agreement and a certificate of service demonstrating that all parties have been notified of the motion. Ultimately, Jetall prays for the court to grant the requested extension.
Legal Issues Addressed
Agreement of Counsel in Procedural Extensionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellants' counsel agreed to the extension, indicating mutual consent among the parties involved for the procedural adjustment.
Reasoning: The motion is filed prior to the existing deadline, with the appellants' counsel having agreed to the extension.
Challenges in Securing Qualified Legal Representationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Jetall Companies, Inc. supports its request for an extension by highlighting difficulties in obtaining qualified appellate counsel.
Reasoning: The basis for the extension includes challenges in securing qualified appellate counsel.
Extension of Time for Filing Briefs under Texas Rules of Appellate Proceduresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Jetall Companies, Inc. seeks a second extension to file its Appellee’s Brief, citing Rule 38.6(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure as the basis for the request.
Reasoning: The motion cites Rule 38.6(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure as the authority for granting the extension.
Impact of Unavailability of Decision-Makers on Legal Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Jetall’s decision-maker's urgent overseas travel is presented as a reason for needing additional time to file the brief.
Reasoning: The unavailability of Jetall’s decision-maker due to urgent overseas travel.