Wes Gilbreath, Jr., Stacey Gilbreath Powell, Elliot Gilbreath, and Mark Ritter SignAd, Ltd., SignAd GP, LLC, Ben Nevis West, Ltd., Culcreuch West, LLC, Big Signs & Leasing 1, Ltd., Big Signs & Leasing 2, Ltd., Big Signs & Leasing 3, Ltd. El Al v. Lisa R. Gilbreath Horan, Individually and as Trustee of the Lisa Gilbreath Horan 2001 Irrevocable Trust
This text of Wes Gilbreath, Jr., Stacey Gilbreath Powell, Elliot Gilbreath, and Mark Ritter SignAd, Ltd., SignAd GP, LLC, Ben Nevis West, Ltd., Culcreuch West, LLC, Big Signs & Leasing 1, Ltd., Big Signs & Leasing 2, Ltd., Big Signs & Leasing 3, Ltd. El Al v. Lisa R. Gilbreath Horan, Individually and as Trustee of the Lisa Gilbreath Horan 2001 Irrevocable Trust (Wes Gilbreath, Jr., Stacey Gilbreath Powell, Elliot Gilbreath, and Mark Ritter SignAd, Ltd., SignAd GP, LLC, Ben Nevis West, Ltd., Culcreuch West, LLC, Big Signs & Leasing 1, Ltd., Big Signs & Leasing 2, Ltd., Big Signs & Leasing 3, Ltd. El Al v. Lisa R. Gilbreath Horan, Individually and as Trustee of the Lisa Gilbreath Horan 2001 Irrevocable Trust) 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
ACCEPTED 01-17-00316-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 5/25/2018 8:23 AM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK
No. 01-17-00316-CV
FILED IN IN THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 5/25/2018 8:23:44 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE WES GILBREATH, JR., ET AL., Clerk
Appellants,
v.
LISA R. GILBREATH HORAN, Individually and as Trustee of the LISA GILBREATH HORAN 2001 IRREVOCABLE TRUST,
Appellee,
Appeal from the 80th District Court of Harris County, Texas Trial Cause No. 2013-74857
APPELLEE’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE COMPANY APPELLANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED WORD COUNT LIMIT FOR APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF
Appellee objects to the Company Appellants’ request for a 40% increase to
the length of their reply brief, from 7,500 words to 10,500 words.
The Company Appellants’ justifications for their request are invalid. They
suggest that Appellee violated Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(2)(B) by filing two
Appellees’ Briefs—both within the 15,000-word limit—in response to the two
separate Appellants’ Briefs filed in this case, both of which are lengthy (the Company Appellants’ Brief is 14,952 words; the Individual Appellants’ Brief is
11,746 words; and both briefs incorporate sections of the other). Appellants’ theory
is that the Rules allow each group of appellants to file a 15,000-word opening brief
and a 7,500-word reply brief, with a maximum of 27,000 words (thus allowing the
Appellants in this case up to 30,000 words for their opening briefs, with a
maximum of 54,000 words, since there are two groups of appellants), but strictly
limit Appellee to 27,000 words in responding to both groups. This interpretation of
the Rules is patently unreasonable and cannot be correct.
The Company Appellants also suggest that they require thousands of
additional words for their reply brief because Appellee submitted an excessive
amount of briefing. But again, that is incorrect. Appellee’s Brief in Response to the
Company Appellants’ Brief is 14,715 words—237 words shorter than the
Company Appellants’ Brief. Even including the sections of Appellee’s Brief in
Response to the Individual Appellants’ Brief that Appellee incorporated by
reference (mostly the Statement of Facts), Appellee is well below the 27,000-word
maximum.
The reason so much briefing has been submitted in this appeal is because
Appellants chose to assert an objectively excessive number of issues. The
Company Appellants’ Brief raises twenty-eight points of error, and the Individual
Appellants’ Brief raises an additional thirteen points of error. Despite the excessive
2 number of issues asserted, Appellee managed to respond within the 15,000-word
limit. The Company Appellants should not be permitted to now gain an unfair
advantage, after Appellee has submitted her briefs, by obtaining a significant
increase to the length of their optional reply brief. The Company Appellants’
motion should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ J. Stephen Barrick J. Stephen Barrick State Bar No. 00796168 sbarrick@hicks-thomas.com HICKS THOMAS LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 2000 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 547-9100 (713) 547-9150 (Fax)
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE LISA GILBREATH HORAN
3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on May 25, 2018, a copy of this document was served upon the following counsel via electronic service:
Kevin Dubose ALEXANDER DUBOSE JEFFERSON & TOWNSEND LLP 1844 Harvard Street Houston, Texas 77008 kdubose@adjtlaw.com Counsel for Individual Defendants/Appellants
Lauren B. Harris PORTER HEDGES LLP 1000 Main Street, 36th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 lharris@porterhedges.com Counsel for Company Defendants/Appellants
/s/ J. Stephen Barrick
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Wes Gilbreath, Jr., Stacey Gilbreath Powell, Elliot Gilbreath, and Mark Ritter SignAd, Ltd., SignAd GP, LLC, Ben Nevis West, Ltd., Culcreuch West, LLC, Big Signs & Leasing 1, Ltd., Big Signs & Leasing 2, Ltd., Big Signs & Leasing 3, Ltd. El Al v. Lisa R. Gilbreath Horan, Individually and as Trustee of the Lisa Gilbreath Horan 2001 Irrevocable Trust, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wes-gilbreath-jr-stacey-gilbreath-powell-elliot-gilbreath-and-mark-texapp-2018.