Chrisondath Badall v. Rukmin Durgapersad, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Ramdath Durgapersad, Susan Durgapersad, Reshma Durgapersad, and Rehka Durgapersad

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 22, 2014
• Docket: 01-13-00596-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-13-00596-CV Style: Chrisondath Badall v. Rukmin Durgapersad Date motion filed*: April 3, 2014 Type of motion: Motion to suspend requirement for additional copies of appellant’s brief Party filing motion: Appellant Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time: Original due date: Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date: Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted If document is to be filed, document due:  Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time  Denied  Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)  Other: _____________________________________ In conjunction with his appellant’s brief, appellant filed a motion to suspend requirement for additional copies of appellant’s brief, stating that appellant “is able to produce (2) copies of his appellate brief.” Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.3(a)(1) states: “If a document is not electronically filed, a party must file the original and one unbound copy of the document . . . .” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.3(a)(1). Appellant has complied with this rule by filing two hard copies of his appellant’s brief. Accordingly, we dismiss appellant’s motion as moot.

Judge's signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes 

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: April 22, 2014

November 7, 2008 Revision