Opinion

James P Arthur v. John Michael Raborn, Blackburne & Brown Mortgage Fund, Inc.

Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Filed
Feb 24, 2022
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: James P. Arthur, Mary Arthur, Legonite, Inc., Paradise

Living, Inc., and Arthur Holdings, L.P. v. John M. Raborn

Appellate case number: 01-21-00072-CV

Trial court case number: 2020-13849

Trial court: 11th District Court of Harris County

On February 5, 2021, appellants, James P. Arthur, Mary Arthur, Legonite, Inc.,

Paradise Living, Inc., and Arthur Holdings, L.P., filed a notice of appeal from the trial

court’s January 5, 2021 final judgment. After being notified that their appeal was subject

to dismissal, the Court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution on August 19, 2021,

because appellants failed to provide the Court evidence that they had paid the fee for the

preparation of the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

On August 24, 2021, appellants filed a motion for rehearing, providing evidence to

the Court that the clerk’s record had been paid for, and the clerk’s record was filed with

the Clerk of this Court on August 19, 2021. On September 28, 2021, the Court granted

appellants’ motion for rehearing, withdrawing its August 19, 2021 opinion dismissing the

appeal. With the appellate record complete, and the appeal reinstated on the Court’s active

docket, the due date for appellants’ brief was initially set as October 28, 2021. Appellants

failed to timely file a brief by this deadline.

On November 16, 2021, appellants were notified that their appeal was subject to

dismissal if they failed to file a brief, or motion for extension of time to file a brief, within

ten days of the notice. On November 29, 2021, appellants filed their first motion for

extension of time to file a brief. In the first motion for extension, appellants stated that the

extension as necessary due to “[u]nanticipated health challenges faced by [l]ead [a]ppellant

(Dr. James Arthur), his counsel and some of the personnel in counsel’s office, including

the death of family members.” The motion was granted by the Court and the deadline to

file their brief was extended to December 30, 2021. Again however, no brief was filed by

the extended deadline.

On January 3, 2022, appellants were notified for a second time that their appeal was

subject to dismissal if they failed to file a brief, or motion for extension of time to file a

brief, within ten days of the notice. On January 14, 2022, appellants filed their second

motion for extension of time. In their second motion for extension of time, appellants

stated that the extension was necessary because “[a]ppellants and their counsel/staff health

challenges have worsened after the filing of their previous motion to extend,” and that they

“have not been spared by the Omicron variant of COVID-19 . . . necessitat[ing] unplanned

self-quarantining and unanticipated interruption of work.” Appellants requested that the

deadline for filing their brief be extended to January 28, 2022. Appellants’ second motion

for extension was granted by the Court. In our order granting appellants’ second motion

for extension, we advised appellants that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no further

requests for extension would be considered. Again however, no brief was filed by the

extended deadline.

On February 10, 2022, appellants filed their third motion for extension of time to

file their brief. In the third motion for extension, appellants state that the extension is

necessary as counsel for appellant “suffered what appeared to be a mild stroke” on January

14, 2022, which has impacted counsel’s “ability to read, to drive, to eat and to talk.”

Accordingly, appellants request “an extension of time to file their brief for a minimum of

[two] weeks and a maximum of [thirty] days.”

Appellants’ third motion for extension is granted. Appellants’ brief must be filed

within thirty days of the date of this order. No further extensions will be considered.

See TEX. DISCIPLINARY RULES PROF’L CONDUCT R. 1.01(a), reprinted in TEX. GOV’T

CODE ANN., tit. 2, subtit. G, app. A (TEX. STATE BAR R. art. X, § 9).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ April Farris_______

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___February 24, 2022____

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.