in Re Valero Refining-Texas, L.P.

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-15-00566-CV Style: In re Valero Refining – Texas, L.P., Relator Date motion filed*: August 7, 2015 Type of motion: First Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Brief Parties filing motion: Real Parties in Interest Vernon Fox and Mikki Fox Document to be filed: Response to Mandamus Petition

Is appeal accelerated? Yes (mandamus).

If motion to extend time: Original due date: August 10, 2015 Number of extensions granted: 0 Current Due Date: August 10, 2015 Date Requested: September 9, 2015

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted If document is to be filed, document due: September 9, 2015.  No further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.  Denied  Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)  Other: _____________________________________ Given counsel’s previously-planned vacation and the voluminous record, the real parties in interest’s unopposed motion for an extension to file their response to the mandamus petition until September 9, 2015, is granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 10.3(a)(2),10.5(b)(1). However, counsel is warned that no further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances because this is a mandamus petition.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes 

Date: August 18, 2015

November 7, 2008 Revision