Ranchos Real Developers, Inc. v. the County of El Paso and Catalina Development, Inc. and David Escobar, Trustee

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided May 20, 2004·No. 08-04-00014-CV·Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RANCHOS REAL DEVELOPERS, INC.,

                            Appellant,

v.

THE COUNTY OF EL PASO, CATALINA DEVELOPMENT, INC., AND DAVID ESCOBAR, TRUSTEE,

                            Appellees.

'

No. 08-04-00014-CV

Appeal from the

171st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#2003-5550)

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON ORDER

On April 22, 2004, we granted Appellees= Motion to Require Security, and ordered that within thirty days Appellant must either:  (1) execute and file with the trial court clerk a bond to Appellees, with two or more good and sufficient sureties, to be approved by the trial court clerk, in the amount of $320,000, conditioned that Appellant will abide our decision in the appeal and will pay all sums of money and costs that may be adjudged against it in the event the temporary injunction was properly denied by the trial court; or (2) deposit cash in lieu of the bond into the registry of the trial court.


On May 13, 2004, Appellees filed an Unopposed Motion to Clarify Order  Requiring Security.  On the same day, they filed a Motion for Expedited Consideration of Motion to Clarify Order Requiring Security.  This second motion is opposed by Appellant.

Generally, this Court will not hear or determine a motion until ten days after the motion was filed.  See Tex. R. App. P. 10.3(a).  We may, however, hear and determine an unopposed motion before ten days have expired.  See Tex. R. App. P. 10.3(a)(2).

It is therefore ordered that Appellees= Unopposed Motion to Clarify Order Requiring Security is granted.  Our April 22, 2004 order is clarified to make clear that if security is not posted within thirty days of the date of that order, the stay will be deemed lifted. 

It is further ordered that Appellees= Motion for Expedited Consideration of Motion to Clarify Order Requiring Security is denied as moot.

SUSAN LARSEN, Justice

May 20, 2004

Before Panel No. 1

Larsen, McClure, and Chew, JJ.

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

Ranchos Real Developers, Inc. v. the County of El Paso and Catalina Development, Inc. and David Escobar, Trustee, (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Ranchos Real Developers, Inc. v. the County of El Paso and Catalina Development, Inc. and David Escobar, Trustee (Ranchos Real Developers, Inc. v. the County of El Paso and Catalina Development, Inc. and David Escobar, Trustee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.