# Board of Regents, Texas State University System, and Texas State University-San Marcos v. Stephanie Paige Steinbach > Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · January 5, 2015 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4039697 ## Case - **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) - **Decided:** January 5, 2015 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4039697 ## Opinion text ACCEPTED 03-14-00326-CV 3655061 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/5/2015 4:18:00 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK CAUSE NO. 03-14-00326-CV FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS BOARD OF REGENTS, TEXAS § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY and § 1/5/2015 4:18:00 PM TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY - § JEFFREY D. KYLE SAN MARCOS, § Clerk Appellants, § § V. § THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS § STEPHANIE PAIGE STEINBACH § Appellee. § AUSTIN DIVISION UNOPPOSED SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: COMES NOW Appellants Board of Regents, Texas State University and Texas State University–San Marcos, by and through the undersigned Assistant Attorney General, and files this its Unopposed First Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Reply Brief; and would show the Court as follows: 1. Appellants are Board of Regents, Texas State University and Texas State University–San Marcos. Appellee is Stephanie Paige Steinbach. 2. Appellants’ reply brief is currently due on January 9, 2015. Cause No. 10-0281; Stephanie Steinbach vs. Board of Regents, Texas State University System and Texas State University - San Marcos Unopposed Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Reply Brief Page No. 1 3. This Unopposed Second Motion to Extend Time is filed before the deadline to file the reply brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(d). 4. Appellants have contacted attorney for Appellee, and he is unopposed to this Motion. 5. Pursuant to Rules 10.5(b) and 38.6(d) of the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure, Appellants move this Court for a 30 day extension of time to file Appellants’ brief, extending the deadline to February 9, 2015. 6. Appellants seek an extension of time to file their brief because counsel for Appellants is leaving the Office of Attorney General effective January 9, 2015. In addition, Appellants’ counsel was out of state over the holidays and was also out of the office several days in December 2014 for medical reasons. PRAYER For these reasons, Appellants ask the Court to grant an extension of time to file their reply brief, thereby extending the deadline to February 9, 2015. Respectfully submitted, KEN PAXTON Attorney General of Texas CHARLES E. ROY First Assistant Attorney General DAVID C. MATTAX Deputy Attorney General for Defense Litigation Cause No. 10-0281; Stephanie Steinbach vs. Board of Regents, Texas State University System and Texas State University - San Marcos Unopposed Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Reply Brief Page No. 2 KARA L. KENNEDY Chief, Tort Litigation Division /s/ Kamilla L. Stokes KAMILLA L. STOKES Assistant Attorney General State Bar No. 00792259 P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2548 (512) 463-2197 Fax (512) 457-4436 Kamilla.stokes@texasattorneygeneral.gov CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I hereby certify that on the 5th day of January, 2015, I contacted Mark Cusack, attorney for Appellee, and he is unopposed to this Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Reply Brief. /s/ Kamilla L. Stokes KAMILLA L. STOKES Assistant Attorney General CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify compliance with Tex. R. Civ. P. 21. A true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been served on all counsel, by electronic transmission to the electronic mail address on file with the electronic filing manager Rule 21a(1). If a party has not designated an electronic mail address with the electronic filing manager, the party was served a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument in person, by mail, by commercial delivery service by fax or by email, or by such other manner as the Court in its discretion may direct. Rule 21a(2). Service was made on all parties as provided on January 5, 2015. Cause No. 10-0281; Stephanie Steinbach vs. Board of Regents, Texas State University System and Texas State University - San Marcos Unopposed Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Reply Brief Page No. 3 Via Electronic Service & E-Mail Mr. Mark Cusack 242 North Guadalupe Street San Marcos, Texas 78666 cusacklaw@centurytel.net /s/ Kamilla L. Stokes KAMILLA L. STOKES Assistant Attorney General Cause No. 10-0281; Stephanie Steinbach vs. Board of Regents, Texas State University System and Texas State University - San Marcos Unopposed Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Reply Brief Page No. 4 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4039697. Public record. Not legal advice.