Court Opinion

ID: 9366930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-30 09:09:46.373803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:56.047112
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
                           FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

                                            ORDER

Appellate case name:         Senior Care Living, VI, LLC and Mark C. Bouldin v. Preston
                             Hollow Capital, LLC, UMB Bank N.A., and TMI Trust
                             Company
Appellate case number:       01-21-00602-CV
Trial court case number:     19-DCV-265897
Trial court:                 458th District Court of Fort Bend County
       Appellants, Senior Care Living, VI, LLC (“Senior Care”) and Mark C. Bouldin,
have appealed from the trial court’s August 4, 2021 Final Judgment and Order Appointing
Post-Judgment Receiver. In its Final Judgment, the trial court awarded damages, in the
cumulative amount, of approximately $50 million, in favor of appellees, Preston Hollow
Capital, LLC, UMB Bank N.A., and TMI Trust Company (collectively, “appellees”).
       The clerk’s record was filed on December 17, 2021. After multiple extensions were
granted, the reporter’s record was filed on May 25, 2022. Accordingly, appellants’ brief(s)
were initially due to be filed no later than June 24, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a).
However, appellants’ briefs were not filed until September 19, 2022. Appellees’ brief(s)
were therefore initially due to be filed no later than October 19, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. P.
38.6(b). However, appellees’ briefs were not filed until December 2, 2022.
        Appellants’ reply brief(s), if any, were therefore initially due by December 22, 2022.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(c). Appellants were granted an extension of that deadline, which
is currently January 23, 2023. However, on January 18, 2022, appellants filed a “Second
Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Briefs.” In their motion, appellants request
an additional thirty-day extension for filing their reply briefs, noting that appellees “filed a
[Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure] 24.4 Motion for Review” of the trial court’s
supersedeas order related to Bouldin on January 11, 2023, which “has distracted attention
from the reply briefing,” and further that counsel for appellants “have been and will
continue to be engaged in other litigation.”
      Appellees filed a response in opposition to appellants’ motion for extension on
January 19, 2023.
        Appellant’s motion for extension is granted in part. The deadline for appellants
to file their reply brief(s), if any, is extended to February 8, 2023. No further extensions
will be considered.
       It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ April Farris________
                    Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___January 24, 2023_____

                                             2