David Mauk v. Pipe Creek Water Well, LLC and Robert Rae Powell

Opinion

ACCEPTED

04-14-00906-cv

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

3/2/2015 5:21:09 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

No. 04-14-00906-CV

FILED IN

IN THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

at SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 3/2/2015 5:21:09 PM

__________________________________________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE

Clerk

DAVID MAUK

Appellant

v.

Appellees

PIPE CREEK WATER WELL, LLC and ROBERT RAE POWELL

__________________________________________________________________

Cause No. 2013-CI-00386; Appeal from the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

__________________________________________________________________

APPELLANT, DAVID MAUK’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO APPELLEES’ REPLY BRIEF

__________________________________________________________________

TO THE HONORABLE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS:

NOW COMES, Appellant, DAVID MAUK, and files his Unopposed Motion to Extend Deadline to Respond to Appellees’ Reply Brief and in support thereof would respectfully show the following: 1. Appellees’ filed their Reply Brief on February 19, 2015. 2. Appellant’s deadline to reply to Plaintiffs’ Response is twenty-one (21) days after the Reply Brief is filed, being Thursday, March 12, 2015.

1

Unopposed Motion to Extend time to Respond to Appellee’s Reply Brief 3.2.2015 3. Appellant respectfully requests an extension of time to reply due to the fact that Appellant’s counsel the lead attorney in this matter, is on vacation from March 9, 2015 through March 13, 2015. 4. Further Appellant’s counsel has a deadline of March 16, 2015 to file a 12b(6) Motion in response to Plaintiff’s Fist Amended Petition in a federal case styled Civil No. SA-14-CA-941-OLG, David Neill Jones v. Kerr County, Texas, Kerr County Sheriff’s Department, Officer Stephen Wherry, Officers John Doe, Kerrville Police Department, City of Kerrville; in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio, Division. Also, Appellant’s counsel has other matters to conclude before his vacation, which will preclude diligence in researching and briefing the issues presented herein. 5. Appellant, David Mauk, respectfully requests that the Court grant a seven (7) day extension for the reasons stated herein extending our deadline to March 19, 2015. This Motion is not sought for delay but in the interest that proper attention can be given to adequately review Appellees’ Reply Brief and the exhibits tendered with said Reply and to prepare a Response to Appellees’ Reply Brief. 6. Appellant conferred with Appellees’ counsel, Megan H. Kucera, on March 2, 2015 and counsel is unopposed to this motion as it is not sought for the purpose of delay, but so that justice may be done.

2

Unopposed Motion to Extend time to Respond to Appellee’s Reply Brief 3.2.2015

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant, David Mauk, hereby prays that the Court allow additional time and extend the deadline to reply to Appellees’ Response to Appellant’s Reply Brief.

MCKAMIE KRUEGER, LLP

941 Proton Road

San Antonio, Texas 78258

210.546.2122

210.546.2130

By: /s/ Adolfo Ruiz

Adolfo Ruiz

State Bar No. 17385600

adolfo@mckamiekrueger.com Barbara L. Quirk

State Bar No. 16436750

barbara@mckamiekrueger.com

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT,

DAVID MAUK

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of Appellant’s Unopposed Motion to Extend Appellant’s Deadline to Respond to Appellees’ Reply Brief was served on Appellees through counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure as indicated below on the March 2, 2015, addressed to:

Keith P. Miller via E-Serve Megan Kucera Law Offices of Keith P. Miller, P.C. 14350 Northbrook, Ste. 150 San Antonio, Texas 78232

/s/: Adolfo Ruiz

ADOLFO RUIZ

3

Unopposed Motion to Extend time to Respond to Appellee’s Reply Brief 3.2.2015