1

Unopposed Motion to Extend time to Re spond to Appellee’s Reply Brief 3.2.2015 No. 04-14-00906-CV

IN THE FOURTH CO URT OF APPEALS at SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

________________________ ______________________ ____________________ DAVID MAUK Appellant

v. Appellees PIPE CREEK WATER WELL, LL C and ROBERT RAE POWELL

________________________ ______________________ ____________________ Cause No. 2013-CI-00386; Appeal from the 408 th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

________________________ ______________________ ____________________ APPELLANT, DAVID MAUK’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO RESP OND TO APPELLEES’ REPLY BRIEF

________________________ ______________________ ____________________

TO THE HONORABLE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS: NOW COMES, Appellant, DAVID MAU K, and files his Unopposed Motion to Extend Deadline to Respond to Appellees ’ Reply Brief and in support thereof would respectfully show the following: 1. Appellees’ filed their Reply Brief on February 19, 2015. 2. Appellant’s deadline to reply to Plai ntiffs’ Response is twenty-one (21) days after the Reply Brief is filed, being Thursday, March 12, 2015. ACCEPTED 04-14-00906-cv FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 3/2/2015 5:21:09 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK2

Unopposed Motion to Extend time to Re spond to Appellee’s Reply Brief 3.2.2015 3. Appellant respectfully requests an exte nsion of time to reply due to the fact that Appellant’s counsel the lead attorney in this matter, is on vacation from March 9, 2015 through Ma rch 13, 2015. 4. Further Appellant’s counsel has a dead line of March 16, 2015 to file a 12b(6) Motion in response to Plaintiff’s Fist Ame nded Petition in a federal case styled Civil No. SA-14-CA-941-OLG, David Neill Jones v. Kerr C ounty, Texas, Kerr County Sheriff’s Department, Officer Stephen Whe rry, Officers John Doe, Kerrville Police Department, City of Kerrville; in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio, Divisi on. Also, Appellant’s counsel has other

matters to conclude before his vacation, which will preclude diligence in researching and briefing the issues presented herein. 5. Appellant, David Mauk, respectfully re quests that the Court grant a seven (7) day extension for the reasons stated he rein extending our deadline to March 19, 2015. This Motion is not sought for delay but in the interest that proper attention can be given to adequately review Appell ees’ Reply Brief and the exhibits tendered with said Reply and to prepare a Response to A ppellees’ Reply Brief. 6. Appellant conferred w ith Appellees’ counsel, Mega n H. Kucera, on March 2, 2015 and counsel is unopposed to this motion as it is not sought for the purpose of delay, but so that justice may be done.3

Unopposed Motion to Extend time to Re spond to Appellee’s Reply Brief 3.2.2015 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant, Davi d Mauk, hereby prays that the Court allow additional tim e and extend the deadline to reply to Appellees’ Response to Appe llant’s Reply Brief.

M C K AMIE K RUEGER , LLP 941 Proton Road San Antonio, Texas 78258 210.546.2122 210.546.2130 By: /s/ Adolfo Ruiz Adolfo Ruiz State Bar No. 17385600 adolfo@mckamiekrueger.com Barbara L. Quirk State Bar No. 16436750 barbara@mckamiekrueger.com ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT, DAVID MAUK CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of Appellant’s Unopposed Motion to Extend Appellant’s Deadline to Respond to Appellees’ Reply Brief was served on Appellees through counsel of record in accordance with th e Texas Rules of Appe llate Procedure as indicated below on the Marc h 2, 2015, addressed to:

Keith P. Miller via E-Serve Megan Kucera Law Offices of Keith P. Miller, P.C. 14350 Northbrook, Ste. 150 San Antonio, Texas 78232

/s/: Adolfo Ruiz A DOLFO R UIZ