Kevin Conlin and Kathryn Conlin v. Darrell Haun and Solarcraft, Inc.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 10, 2013
Docket01-13-00329-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Kevin Conlin and Kathryn Conlin v. Darrell Haun and Solarcraft, Inc. (Kevin Conlin and Kathryn Conlin v. Darrell Haun and Solarcraft, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kevin Conlin and Kathryn Conlin v. Darrell Haun and Solarcraft, Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Kevin Conlin and Kathryn Conlin v. Darrell Haun and Solarcraft, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01-13-00329-CV

Trial court case number: 09-DCV-169352

Trial court: 434th District Court of Fort Bend County

Appellees have filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss Appeal, or, In the Alternative, Motion to Extend Time to File Brief. Appellees cite no authority, and we have found none, for their claim that the appeal should be dismissed. Accordingly, appellees’ request that the appeal be dismissed is DENIED. Further, appellees indicate that they have requested that the reporter file additional hearing records, and request that we order appellants to pay for the additional portions of the reporter’s record that appellees have requested. However, the record reflects that the appellants served the appellees with appellants’ designation of the reporter’s record to be filed in this appeal. The appellees did not request the additional portions of the record until after the reporter’s record was filed in this Court and appellants had filed their brief. Under these circumstances, the requested records are supplemental and appellees are responsible for payment for the supplemental records. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(d); Graves v. Diehl, No. 01-00-00412- CV, 2006 WL 1699527, at *3 n.4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 22, 2006, pet. denied); Johnson v. Alcon Laboratories, 149 S.W.3d 653, 654 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 13, 2003, order). Appellees are permitted to request supplementation of the reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(b)(3). However, a request for a supplemental record does not affect the deadline for filing a brief, because the briefing deadlines are set based on the receipt of the original clerk’s and reporter’s records. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6. Accordingly, appellees are ORDERED to pay for the supplemental records they have requested within 5 days of the date of this order. The court reporter is ORDERED to file the supplemental reporter’s record within 10 days of the date that payment is received from the appellees. Appellees have indicated that their brief is nearly complete; accordingly, appellees’ brief will be due 10 days after the date that the supplemental reporter’s record is filed. No further extensions will be granted to file the brief absent extraordinary circumstances. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d). It is so ORDERED. Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: June 10, 2013

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

Related

Johnson v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc.
149 S.W.3d 653 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kevin Conlin and Kathryn Conlin v. Darrell Haun and Solarcraft, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kevin-conlin-and-kathryn-conlin-v-darrell-haun-and-texapp-2013.