Michael Quinn Sullivan v. Salem Abraham
This text of Michael Quinn Sullivan v. Salem Abraham (Michael Quinn Sullivan v. Salem Abraham) 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.
Opinion
FILED 14-0987 2/19/2015 11:29:51 AM tex-4209022 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK
No. 14-0987
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
MICHAEL QUINN SULLIVAN,
Petitioner,
vs.
SALEM ABRAHAM,
Respondent.
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT AT AMARILLO NO. 07-13-00296-CV
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE
Respectfully submitted,
LOVELL, LOVELL, NEWSOM & ISERN, L.L.P. John H. Lovell, State Bar No. 12609300 John@lovell-law.net Courtney Miller, State Bar No. 24055342 Courtney@lovell-law.net 112 West 8th Avenue, Suite 1000 Eagle Centre Building Amarillo, Texas 79101-2314 Telephone: (806) 373-1515 Facsimile: (806) 379-7176
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT February 19, 2015 TO THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS:
COMES NOW Respondent, Salem Abraham, and files this his Unopposed
Motion for Extension of Time to File Respondent’s Response. Respondent would
show the Court the following:
I.
1. Respondent Salem Abraham hereby requests an extension of time to file
the Respondent’s Response in the above-referenced case. Respondent’s Response is
due on Monday, February 23, 2015. Respondent requests a thirty (30) day extension
to Wednesday, March 25, 2105, to file his Response. Petitioner’s attorneys do not
oppose this motion, nor a thirty (30) day extension.
2. This is Respondent’s first request for an extension. Respondent relies
on the following facts as a reasonable explanation for the requested extension of time.
Respondent’s counsel, in addition to preparing a Response in this case also had to
devote time to a week long jury trial in Vernon, Texas in the matter of John
Mikkelsen, acting solely in his capacity as Trustee of the John Mikkelsen Trust v.
Herring Bancorp., Inc., C.C. Burgess and C. Campbell Burgess, Cause No. 24,955,
46th District Court, Wilbarger, Texas, and then, on February 11, 2015, Respondent’s
counsel’s wife had an undergo an unexpected surgery. An extension is necessary due
to John Lovell’s unexpected schedule changes due to his wife’s surgery and recovery
3. Work on Respondent’s Response began in a timely fashion. However, the
i unplanned matters set out above have made the proper completion of Respondent’s
Response by February 23, 2015 a problem.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Respondent, Salem Abraham,
prays that this Court grant his motion for a thirty (30) day extension of time to file
Respondent’s Response.
DATED this 19th day of February, 2015.
LOVELL, LOVELL, NEWSOM & ISERN, L.L.P. John H. Lovell, State Bar No. 12609300 John@lovell-law.net Courtney Miller, State Bar No. 24055342 Courtney@lovell-law.net 112 West 8th Avenue, Suite 1000 Eagle Centre Building Amarillo, Texas 79101-2314 Telephone: (806) 373-1515 Facsimile: (806) 379-7176
By:/s/ John H. Lovell John H. Lovell
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
ii CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
As required by Tex. R. App. P. 10.1(a)(5), I certify that I have conferred with Petitioner’s counsel, Joe Nixon, who indicated that this motion is unopposed.
By:/s/ Courtney D. Miller Courtney D. Miller
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was delivered, as certified below, this 19th day of February, 2015 to:
James E. “Trey” Trainor III Via E-mail and Regular Mail Joseph M. Nixon BEIRNE, MAYNARD & PARSONS, LLP 401 W. 15th Street, Suite 845 Austin, Texas 78701
iii
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Michael Quinn Sullivan v. Salem Abraham, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-quinn-sullivan-v-salem-abraham-texapp-2015.