1

No. 14-15-00363-CV

IN THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 

HOUSTON, TEXAS

LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and

DAVID ERIC KASSAB,

Appellants,

v.

JIMMY VAN KNIGHTON, II a/k/a JAY V. KNIGHTON, II, individually,

and STONE & ASSOCIATES, LLP n/k/a KNIGHTON & STONE, PLLC,

Appellees.

On Appeal from 2011-75990-A, in the 133rd District Court, Harris County

Honorable Jaclanel McFarland, Presiding

AGREED MOTION TO ABATE APPEAL

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellants Lance Christopher Kassab and David Eric Kassab 

(collectively “Kassab”) file this agreed motion to abate this appeal, and in 

support states as follows:

1. By this appeal, Kassab intends to challenge an order rendered 

by the Honorable Jaclanel McFarland in Beatty v. Jimmy Van Knighton, II 

ACCEPTED

14-15-00363-cv

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

5/1/2015 11:20:35 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 5/1/2015 11:20:35 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
2

a/k/a Jay V. Knighton, II, Individually, and Stone & Associates, LLP n/k/a 

Knighton & Stone, PLLC, Cause No. 2011-75990, in the 133rd Judicial 

District Court, Harris County, Texas, on March 5, 2012 sanctioning Kassab 

for the filing of Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition (“First Amended 

Petition”) in that lawsuit. That order remained interlocutory during the 

pendency of that lawsuit.

2. In addition to imposing monetary sanctions and awarding 

attorney’s fees against Kassab in connection with the filing, the sanctions 

order also directed the district clerk to strike the First Amended Petition 

from the record.

3. The underlying suit subsequently settled, but the settlement did 

not resolve the sanctions order. On March 23, 2015, Judge McFarland 

declined Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the sanctions order but granted the 

request that the sanctions order be severed it into a new case, Beatty v.

Jimmy Van Knighton, II a/k/a Jay V. Knighton, II, individually, and Stone & 

Associates, LLP n/k/a Knighton & Stone, PLLC Cause No. 2011-75990-A 

(the “Severed Case”) so that Kassab can challenge the sanction and the 

award of attorney’s fees on appeal.
3

4. The order of severance directed the district clerk to include 

certain items in the file of the Severed Case, but did not direct the clerk to 

include the stricken “First Amended Petition” with those items. 

5. It will be necessary for Kassab to have the First Amended 

Petition included in the appellate record so that the sanctions imposed as a 

result of its filing may be addressed on appeal.

6. As the underlying suit had been terminated by the settlement, 

the Severance Order should have rendered the sanctions order, once severed 

into the new cause, a final an appealable order. However, the Severance 

Order included no language indicating that the sanctions order should be 

treated as final and appealable.

7. Assuming that the Severance Order rendered the sanctions 

order final and appealable, Kassab timely filed a notice of appeal within 30 

days of its entry, giving rise to this appeal. Contemporaneously with that 

filing, to resolve any uncertainty about the finality of the Severance Order, 

Kassab also filed a motion with the trial court requesting that it enter an 

amended order of severance that would do two things: (1) incorporate

“Mother Hubbard” language into the severance order that would confirm 

that the sanctions order is now final and appealable, and (2) direct the trial 
4

court to include the First Amended Petition in the pleadings of the severed 

case so that Kassab can bring it before this Court on appeal.

8. Kassab’s certificate of conference to the motion to amend the 

sanctions order stated that counsel for Defendants/Appellees had not 

indicated whether the motion would be opposed or unopposed as of the time 

of its filing. Since that time, counsel has authorized Kassab to inform the 

trial court that the motion is unopposed, and Kassab is in the process of 

doing so and requesting the entry of an agreed amended order of severance 

as described above.

9. Kassab files this Agreed Motion to Abate this appeal pending a 

resolution of the motion to sever by Judge McFarland. If the motion in the 

district court is granted, the amended order will resolve any issues about 

whether this appeal arises from a final judgment, eliminating any need for 

briefing before this Court on the issue. It will also ensure that the

designation of clerk’s record will contain all items necessary for the proper 

consideration of the appeal, and that the docketing statement accurately sets 

forth the procedural history by which Appellants assert finality.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, premises considered, Appellants respectfully pray that this 

Court abate the deadlines associated with this appeal, including the deadlines 
5

for filing a docketing statement and designating the clerk’s record until such 

time as the pending motion to amend the severance order is resolved by the 

district court. 
6

Respectfully submitted,

/S/ Michael S. Truesdale

Michael S. Truesdale

LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL S. TRUESDALE, PLLC

State Bar No. 00791825

801 West Avenue, Suite 201

Austin, TX 78701

512-482-8671

866-847-8719 (fax)

mike@truesdalelaw.com

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On May 1, 2015, the undersigned certifies that he served a copy of 

this Brief of Appellants on the following in the manner listed below, in 

compliance with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9:

Sam A. Houston

Shepherd, Scott, Clawater & Houston, LLP

2777 Allen Parkway, 7th Floor

Houston, TX 77019

713-650-6600

713-650-1720 (fax)

Counsel for Appellees

Via e-service

/s/ Michael S. Truesdale

Michael S. Truesdale

SBN 00791825

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned certifies that he conferred with Sam A. Houston 

regarding the relief requested in this motion and Mr. Houston indicated that 

the motion could be filed as an agreed motion.

 /s/ Michael S. Truesdale 

Michael S. Truesdale