Jay Cohen v. Tour Partners, LTD., Dennis J. Wilkerson, and Eighteen Investments, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided December 8, 2015·No. 01-15-00705-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 01-15-00705-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/8/2015 2:09:36 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK

No. 01-15-00705-CV

In the Court of Appeals FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS For the First Judicial District of Texas HOUSTON, TEXAS Houston, Texas 12/8/2015 2:09:36 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk Jay H. Cohen, Appellant

v.

Tour Partners, Ltd.; Dennis J. Wilkerson; and Eighteen Investments, Inc., Appellees

On Appeal from Cause No. 2013-68181 In The 55th District Court of Harris County, Texas The Honorable Judge Shadwick, Presiding

Appellees’ Response to Appellant’s Motion for Extension

Hawash Meade Gaston Neese & Cicack LLP Walter J. Cicack Texas Bar No. 04250535 Samuel B. Haren Texas Bar No. 24059899 2118 Smith Street Houston, Texas 77002 713-658-9001 (phone) 713-658-9011 (fax) wcicack@hmgnc.com sharen@hmgnc.com Attorneys for Appellees and Cross Appellant Appellant Jay H. Cohen’s opening brief was due on November 13, 2015. He

did not file one until December 8, 2015. His excuses for his tardiness are vague and

self-contradictory, and the Court should not permit him to file his late brief.

Background

Cohen and Cross-Appellee Tour Partners, Ltd. (“Tour Partners”) were

involved in related lawsuits before the 55th and 269th District Courts of Harris

County, Texas (the “55th Case” and “269th Case,” respectively). The 55th Case led

to the instant appeal. Cohen’s appeal of the 269th Case was docketed in the

Fourteenth Court of Appeals as Cause Number 14-15-00392-CV. Cohen requested

and received three extensions of his briefing deadline, but he never filed his opening

brief—or even a fourth request for extension—in that appeal. See Exhibit 1, 14th

Court Motion to Dismiss (detailing Cohen’s history of extensions). The Fourteenth

Court dismissed Cohen’s appeal of the 269th Case on November 10, 2015. See

Exhibit 2, 14th Court Memorandum Opinion.

Cohen’s opening brief was due in the instant appeal on November 13, 2015.

Cohen did not meet that deadline. Tour Partners filed a Motion to Dismiss on

November 23, 2015, which is incorporated herein. On November 24, 2015, the Court

issued a Notice of Late Brief which warned Cohen that his appeal could be dismissed

unless he filed a brief and motion for extension by December 4, 2015. That notice

further stated that an untimely brief would only be accepted if Cohen could “reasonably explain [his] failure to timely file [his] brief” and if Tour Partners “is

not significantly injured” by Cohen’s failure to comply with his briefing deadline.

Cohen missed that deadline as well.

On December 8, 2015, Cohen filed his brief and motion for extension (the

“Motion”). But his Motion does not offer a reasonable explanation for his failure to

meet his briefing deadline.

Discussion

I. Cohen’s explanations for his untimely brief are vague and contradictory.

According to Cohen, he should be excused from his briefing deadline because

(1) he was too sick to file a timely motion for extension and (2) he has been too busy

to timely file a motion for extension. That is, Cohen says he was unable to draft a

two-page motion for extension despite having the time and ability to try a case,

prepare for three other trials, attend two mediations, participate in a tax protest

hearing, prepare for and conduct an involved shareholder meeting, respond to

discovery, and perform “[v]arious other time-sensitive matters for clients.” See

Motion at 3–4. Apparently, filing a motion to extend a briefing deadline in this Court

was not one of those a “time-sensitive matters” Cohen’s attorney—or his partner—

chose to perform.

Cohen’s Motion does not list all of the relevant “other matters” on which his

attorney worked. For example, Cohen’s counsel was not so ill as to prevent him from

2 filing a motion to extend in his case against Tour Partners in the Fourteenth Court

on September 9, 2015, nor was he too busy to file a new lawsuit on behalf of Cohen

on October 22, 2015. See Exhibit 3, Third Motion for Extension; Exhibit 4, Cohen’s

District Court Petition. Moreover, Cohen’s attorney further fails to explain how his

illness and family matters prevented him from filing a timely motion for extension

or contacting Tour Partners regarding his predicament but did not prevent him from

completing the tasks described in his Motion as well as the “[v]arious other time-

sensitive matters for clients.” In short, Cohen has failed to provide a “reasonable

explanation” for his delay.

II. Tour Partners would be injured if Court accepts Cohen’s untimely brief.

Tour Partners has filed a cross appeal in this case.1 That appeal would provide

an alternative basis to uphold the trial court’s ruling in the event Cohen would

otherwise succeed in the instant appeal. If Cohen does not succeed in his appeal,

Tour Partner’s cross appeal will be moot. Because Cohen’s other appeal was

dismissed by the Fourteenth Court, Tour Partners asked Cohen on November 16,

2015 whether he intended to file a brief in this appeal. See Exhibit 8,

1 Tour Partners won both the 55th and 269th Cases on summary judgment. See Exhibit 5, 269th Summary Judgment Order; Exhibit 6, 55th First Summary Judgment Order. After the 269th Court issued a final judgment, Tour Partners filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment in the 55th Case based on res judicata. Because Tour Partners had already defeated Cohen’s claims, the 55th Court denied that supplemental motion as moot. See Exhibit 7, 55th Second Summary Judgment Order.

3 Correspondence. Cohen did not respond to that email, nor did he (1) explain his

difficulties in filing a brief nor (2) ask Tour Partners to agree to an extension.2 Had

he done so in a timely manner, Tour Partners would have certainly considered

agreeing to an extension based on the health of Cohen’s attorney. Tour Partners

agreed to Cohen’s first request for an extension in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals,

demonstrating its reasonableness in these matters. See Exhibit 9, Cohen’s First

Motion for Extension.

Due to the Fourteenth Court’s dismissal of Cohen’s other appeal and Cohen’s

lack of any indication that he intended to file a brief or seek an extension in this

appeal, Tour Partners correctly surmised that Cohen did not intend to file a timely

brief in this case. As a result, Tour Partners did not undertake the time and expense

of drafting an unnecessary brief. If Cohen is allowed to file his untimely brief, Tour

Partners will not be able to present its cross appeal unless the Court grants it leave

to do so.

Conclusion

Cohen did not file his brief or Motion until well after the deadline. As detailed

in Tour Partners’ previously-filed Motion to Dismiss, Cohen is a serial-offender in

this regard. Cohen has not provided a cogent or reasonable explanation for his

2 Cohen’s certificate of conference notwithstanding, he has not communicated with Tour Partners at all regarding his briefing in this case, let alone conferred on his request for an extension of his briefing deadline.

4 failure, and allowing Cohen to file an untimely brief would harm Tour Partners. Tour

Partners prays that the Court dismiss Cohen’s appeal, issue a final judgment, and

grant Tour Partners all other relief to which it is entitled.

In the event the Court accepts Cohen’s untimely brief, Tour Partners asks for

fourteen (14) days to file its opening brief on its cross appeal.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Jay Cohen v. Tour Partners, LTD., Dennis J. Wilkerson, and Eighteen Investments, Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Jay Cohen v. Tour Partners, LTD., Dennis J. Wilkerson, and Eighteen Investments, Inc. (Jay Cohen v. Tour Partners, LTD., Dennis J. Wilkerson, and Eighteen Investments, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

§ 406.013
Texas GV § 406.013