Opinion
Cause number: 01-15-00305-CV
12-22-2015
Bacon Tomsons, LTd., BRL Oil and Gas, L.L.C. and Ferrell Edwin Munson v. Chrisjo Energy, Inc., Jack M. Cline
ORDER ON MOTION
Type of motions: Appellants' Unopposed Motion to Supplement the Clerk's Record Parties filing motion: Appellants' new counsel Document to be filed: Third Supplemental Clerk's Record Ordered that motions are:
[ ] Granted; if document is to be filed, document due:Judge's signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes
[v] Denied
[ ] Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)
[v] Other: __________
After the clerk's record was properly filed in this Court on May 5, 2015, the appellees filed a letter-request in the trial court to supplement the clerk's record on July 22, 2015, and the appellants did so for a second supplemental clerk's record on September 8, 2015. Both appellees' and appellants' requests to supplement the clerk's record were properly made to the district clerk. Appellants, represented by new counsel, have again requested that the record be supplemented. However, that request was filed in this appellate court. Thus, although appellants' motion is unopposed, their motion to supplement the clerk's record is denied because any requests to supplement the clerk's record should be made directly to the district clerk, not to this Court. See TEX. R. APP. 34.5(c)(1) ("If a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record, . . . any party may by letter direct the trial court clerk to prepare, certify, and file in the appellate court a supplement containing the omitted item.").
[×] Acting individually [ ] Acting for the Court Date: December 22, 2015 November 7, 2008 Revision