M&J Brazos Valley Property Holdings, LTD., and Mark Homeyer v. Christopher and Katie Stavinoha
Opinion
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-18-00172-CV
M&J BRAZOS VALLEY PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LTD., AND MARK HOMEYER, Appellants v.
CHRISTOPHER AND KATIE STAVINOHA, Appellees
From the 21st District Court Burleson County, Texas Trial Court No. 27,466
ORDER
The Un-opposed Appellee’s Motion for Substitution of Counsel was filed on June
25, 2018. The motion does not indicate that a copy was provided to the client in a manner
of delivery authorized by the rule. TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(b), (d). The Court simply reminds
counsel of that obligation; but because the rule does not require counsel to certify
compliance with that aspect of the rule to the Court, the Court will not deny the motion
on that basis. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to substitute Srinivas “Vasue” Behara
and Martha S. Dickie in place of Bill Youngkin, Matthew D. Doss, and the law firm,
Youngkin & Doss, PLLC.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Motion granted Order issued and filed July 3, 2018
M&J Brazos Valley Property Holdings, LTD. v. Stavinoha Page 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
M&J Brazos Valley Property Holdings, LTD., and Mark Homeyer v. Christopher and Katie Stavinoha (M&J Brazos Valley Property Holdings, LTD., and Mark Homeyer v. Christopher and Katie Stavinoha) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.