Court Opinion

ID: 3085920
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 02:44:20.444801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:09:33.790683
License: Public Domain

Charles W. /s

                            Fourth Court of Appeals
                                  San Antonio, Texas
                                        February 9, 2015

                                      No. 04-14-00167-CV

STEPHENS & JOHNSON OPERATING CO.; Henry W. Breyer, III, Trust; CAH, Ltd.-MOPI
for Capital Account; CAH, Ltd.-Stivers Capital Account; CAH, Ltd.-Wiegand Resources Capital
 Account Wiegand Resources; C.T. Carden; Myrl W. Deitch Trust; E.R. Godbout Family Trust;
  Margaret J. Godbout; F.R. Keydel; R.L. Keydel; Pennye K. Maloney; David R. McNitt; RCA
    Trust One; Donald B. Scott; Sunset Production Corporation; Genessee Country Museum,
                                          Appellants

                                                v.

Charles W. SCHROEDER, Elsie A. Schroeder Schneider, Hollis London, Terry Mengers Reel,
Ted Mengers, Debbie Mengers Quates, August H. Setinmeyer, Carole Schroeder Miller, James
  M. Schroeder, Sally Schroeder Tinanus, James E. Schroeder, Sue Schroeder Stanford, Bill
Schroeder, Wayne Hennecke, Diane Hennecke Rhodes, Jerri James, W. Tom Hailey, and Peggy
                                          Hailey,
                                        Appellees

                From the 229th Judicial District Court, Jim Hogg County, Texas
                                 Trial Court No. CC-04-143
                         Honorable Ana Lisa Garza, Judge Presiding

                                         ORDER
        Appellees’ brief was originally due January 4, 2015; however, the court granted appellees
extensions of time until February 5 to file the brief. The brief was not filed. Instead, appellees
filed a motion asking for a further extension until March 6, 2015, to file the brief.

        We grant the motion and order appellees’ brief due March 6, 2015. Appellees are
advised that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a motion that (1)
demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) advises the court of the
efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the court reasonable
assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline. The
court does not generally consider a heavy work schedule to be an extraordinary circumstance.

                                                     _________________________________
                                                     Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 9th day of February, 2015.

                                              ___________________________________
                                              Keith E. Hottle
                                              Clerk of Court