You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Hani Hafiz Ibrahim Qutiefan v. Lubna Aziz Safi

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-18-00425-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; December 29, 2021; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

Hani Hafiz Ibrahim Qutiefan, the appellant, filed a third motion for an extension of time to submit a motion for rehearing in the case against Lubna Abdelziz Safi (also known as Lubna Aziz Safi). The motion was originally due on August 20, 2021. The appellant had previously sought two extensions, each for two years, which the Court partially granted, extending the deadline by thirty days on each occasion. However, the Court issued a warning that no further extensions would be permitted. The appellee opposed the appellant's latest request for an extension. Consequently, the Court denied the appellant’s motion to extend the time for filing the rehearing motion. The order was signed by Judge April L. Farris on December 30, 2021.

Legal Issues Addressed

Extensions for Filing Motions for Rehearing

Application: The appellant's repeated requests for extensions to file a motion for rehearing were denied after prior extensions were granted with a warning of no further extensions.

Reasoning: The appellant had previously sought two extensions, each for two years, which the Court partially granted, extending the deadline by thirty days on each occasion. However, the Court issued a warning that no further extensions would be permitted.

Judicial Discretion in Granting Extensions

Application: The Court exercised its discretion to deny the third extension request, adhering to its previous warning against further extensions.

Reasoning: Consequently, the Court denied the appellant’s motion to extend the time for filing the rehearing motion.

Opposition to Extension Requests

Application: The appellee's opposition to the appellant's motion for an extension was considered in the Court's decision to deny the request.

Reasoning: The appellee opposed the appellant's latest request for an extension.