03-15-00521-CV

In The Texas Court of Appeals 

Third District at Austin 

ROGER FAY, Appellant 

v.

TEXAS A&M UNIVERISTY; GEOCHIMICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

RESEARCH GROUP; THE COLLEGE OF GEOSCIENCES AND 

MARITIME STUDIES; DR. RAY BOWEN; DR. ROBERT DUCE; DR. 

NORMAN GUINASSO; DR. ROGER SASSEN; AND DR. DAVID SCHINK, 

Appellees 

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 200TH JUDICIAL 

DISTRICT NO. 97-08888, HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, 

JUDGE PRESIDING 

_________________________________________________________ 

APPELLANT’S FIRST AMENDED MOTION TO 

REINSTATE APPEAL 

________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 C. Bryan Cantrell 

 State Bar No. 00793459 

 Cantrell, Ray & Barcus, LLP 

 P.O. Box 1019 

 Huntsville, Texas 77342 

 Tel: 936-730-8541 

 Fax: 936-730-8535 

 

 Counsel for Appellant 

ACCEPTED

03-15-00521-CV

8414046

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

12/30/2015 3:54:21 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/30/2015 3:54:21 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
2

TO THE HONORABLE APPEALS COURT OF TEXAS:

1. Appellant, Movant, Roger Fay, requests this Court to reverse its 

decision to dismiss his Appeal. Appellant never received notice of the briefing 

schedule or any other correspondence from the Court until after the Court had 

dismissed Fay’s appeal for want of prosecution. 

2. Movant’s counsel, Bryan Cantrell, never received notice of a briefing 

schedule or any other communication from the Court due to a problem with 

Counsel’s electronic mail system. Cantrell retired an older computer in the Fall of 

2015 and replaced the computer with a new system. Unbeknownst to counsel, the 

computers were both set up with Microsoft Outlook. Because of the security system 

for Cantrell’s firm, the IP address assignment for the two computers would capture 

incoming emails. If the older computer was on, at the office and on the same 

wireless service, it would capture emails directed to Cantrell without posting the 

same emails to the new computer. Essentially, because Outlook periodically 

updated current emails, the two computers would capture emails upon the “receive” 

function. However, the emails captured by the separate computers were not shared 

with the other computer.

3. Cantrell’s office only recently discovered the origin of the problem and 

have since corrected the matter. However, because the retired computer was having 

difficulties operating, we could not retrieve any of the correspondence on that 
3

computer. Cantrell’s office has also established new procedures in an attempt to 

correct any future problems, including copies of correspondence automatically 

directed to paralegal support staff. 

4. The errors in Cantrell’s office were not a result of negligence or 

conscience indifference. The errors were solely the product of an electronic issue 

that Cantrell could not have anticipated. 

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

For the reasons asserted above, Appellant respectfully asks this Court to 

reinstate this appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

CANTRELL, RAY & BARCUS, LLP

By: /s/ C. Bryan Cantrell .

C. Bryan Cantrell

Texas Bar No. 00793459

P.O. Box 1019

Huntsville, Texas 77342

(936) 730-8541 Telephone

(936) 730-8535 Fax

bryan@crblawyers.com
4

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Counsel for Appellant contacted counsel for Appellees, Laura Barber, who 

stated Appellees are opposed to this Motion.

By: /s/ C. Bryan Cantrell .

C. Bryan Cantrell

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that the above and foregoing document has been delivered 

according to the Tex. R. App. P. to all counsel of record on this 30

th day of 

December, 2015.

William T. Deane

Laura Barber

General Litigation Division

P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711-2548

By E-file and/or fax

By: /s/ C. Bryan Cantrell .

C. Bryan Cantrell