Leticia B. Loya v. Miguel Loya, Vitol, Inc., Michael Metz, and Antonio "Tony" Maarraoui

Court of Appeals of Texas

Leticia B. Loya v. Miguel Loya, Vitol, Inc., Michael Metz, and Antonio "Tony" Maarraoui

DecidedFebruary 6, 2018

Docket01-15-00197-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Leticia B. Loya v. Miguel Loya, Vitol, Inc., Michael Metz, and Antonio "Tony" Maarraoui (Leticia B. Loya v. Miguel Loya, Vitol, Inc., Michael Metz, and Antonio "Tony" Maarraoui) 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

Leticia B. Loya v. Miguel Loya, Vitol, Inc., Michael Metz, and Antonio "Tony" Maarraoui, (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-15-00197-CV Style: Leticia B. Loya v. Miguel Loya, Vitol, Inc., Michael Metz, and Antonio “Tony” Maarraoul Date motion filed*: January 29, 2018 Type of motion: Motion for extension of time to file motions for rehearing and en banc reconsideration Party filing motion: Appellant Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated?

If motion to extend time: Original due date: December 24, 2016 Number of previous extensions granted: 0 Current Due date: Date Requested: Fifteen days

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted If document is to be filed, document due:  Denied  Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)  Other: _____________________________________ Our judgment in this case issued on November 29, 2016, and our mandate issued on February 10, 2017. Our plenary power has expired. See TEX. R. APP. P. 19.1. A motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration may be filed within fifteen days after the court of appeals’ judgment is rendered. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1. A court of appeals may extend the time to file a motion for rehearing or a motion for en banc reconsideration if the motion in proper form is filed no later than fifteen days from the last date for filing the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.8. A motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration filed after a court of appeals’ plenary power has expired does not revest the court with jurisdiction to reconsider the case. See Perez v. State, No. 01-10-00243-CR, 2011 WL 2923874, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 21, 2011, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 19.3. Accordingly, appellant’s motion for extension of time to file motions for rehearing and en banc reconsideration is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings 

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: February 6, 2018

November 7, 2008 Revision

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

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-15-00197-CV Style: Leticia B. Loya v. Miguel Loya, Vitol, Inc., Michael Metz, and Antonio “Tony” Maarraoul Date motion filed*: January 29, 2018 Type of motion: Motion for extension of time to file motions for rehearing and en banc reconsideration Party filing motion: Appellant Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated?

If motion to extend time: Original due date: December 24, 2016 Number of previous extensions granted: 0 Current Due date: Date Requested: Fifteen days

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted If document is to be filed, document due:  Denied  Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)  Other: _____________________________________ Our judgment in this case issued on November 29, 2016, and our mandate issued on February 10, 2017. Our plenary power has expired. See TEX. R. APP. P. 19.1. A motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration may be filed within fifteen days after the court of appeals’ judgment is rendered. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1. A court of appeals may extend the time to file a motion for rehearing or a motion for en banc reconsideration if the motion in proper form is filed no later than fifteen days from the last date for filing the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.8. A motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration filed after a court of appeals’ plenary power has expired does not revest the court with jurisdiction to reconsider the case. See Perez v. State, No. 01-10-00243-CR, 2011 WL 2923874, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 21, 2011, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 19.3. Accordingly, appellant’s motion for extension of time to file motions for rehearing and en banc reconsideration is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings 

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: February 6, 2018

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Leticia B. Loya v. Miguel Loya, Vitol, Inc., Michael Metz, and Antonio "Tony" Maarraoui, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leticia-b-loya-v-miguel-loya-vitol-inc-michael-metz-and-antonio-texapp-2018.