No. 14-12-01026- CV

______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE

FOURTEENTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT

OF

TEXAS

AT HOUSTON, TEXAS

______________________________________________________________________________

GWEN STRIBLING HENDERSON, ET AL.,

A ppellants,

v s.

JOHN RICHARD SHANKS, ET AL.,

Appellees.

______________________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Probate Court No. 1

o f Harris County, Texas

______________________________________________________________________________

MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION OF MANDATE

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

COMES NOW GWEN STRIBLING HENDERSON, RAVEN A. PITRE and

CHRISTINE S. WILLIE, Appellants in the above- entitl ed and numbered cause, and move the

Court to stay the issuance of its mandate of affirmance in part and reversal and remand in part in

this cause, a nd in support of said motion would respectfully show the Court the following:

I.

On April 19, 2012, the trial court signed an order striking Appellants ’ Original Petition

with prejudice. On that same day, the trial court also signed an order gran ting Appellee John

Richard Shanks’ Motion for Summary Judgment. This Court affirmed in pa rt and reversed in ACCEPTED

14-12-01026-CV

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

4/8/2015 10:29:05 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKpart and rema nded the trial court ’ s judgment on October 30, 2014. Subsequently, the Appellants

filed a Petition for Review which was denied by the Supreme Court of Texas on February 27,

2015.

II.

The Appellants ’ brief presented a substantial federal question to this Court for

consideration; that being whether the order striking Appellants ’ Original P etition deprived the

trial court of the requisite subject

- matter jurisdiction to grant the motion for summary judgm ent,

in violation of the Equal P rotection and Due Process Rights of the Appellants guaranteed by the

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This question was decided adversely

to the Appellants in this Court ’ s opinion.

III.

The Appellants intend to diligently and timely petition the Supreme Court of the United

States to review this substantial federal question.

IV.

If the Court do es not issue an order staying the mandate in the cause, serious hardship

would result to the Appellants in the event the case is reversed by the Supreme Court of the

United States in that a new trial will have to be undertaken without one of the principle parties to

this litigation. T hus, the issuance of the mandate in this cause may result in piecemeal litigation

if the cause is reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States.WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellants pray the Court st ay issuance of

the mandate in this cause until the Appellants have had an opportunity to timely file and receive

a ruli ng on the Petition for Writ of C ertiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Respectfully submitted,

WILLIE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

By: /s/ Joseph R. Willie, II, D.D.S., J.D.

Joseph R. Willie, II, D.D.S., J.D.

4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 490

Houston, Texas 77027

(713) 659

- 7330

(713) 599

- 1659 (FAX)

SBOT# 21633500

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS

GWEN STRIBLING HENDERSON,

RAVE N A. PITRE AND CHRISTINE S.

WILLIE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was ser ved via e

service to Brett T. Berly and Ryan O. Cantrell , 1200 Smith Street, Suite 1400, Hous ton, Texas

77002 and Thomas A. Willbern, III, 1018 Preston Street, Suite 500, Houston, Texas 77002 , on

the 8 th day of April , 2015

.

/s/ Joseph R. Willie, II, D.D.S., J.D.

Joseph R. Willie, II, D.D.S., J.D.