Badall v. Durgapersad

Full title: Chrisondath Badall v. Rukmin Durgapersad

Court: COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

Date published: Apr 22, 2014

Cause number: 01-13-00596-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 22, 2014)

Opinion

Cause number: 01-13-00596-CV

04-22-2014

Chrisondath Badall v. Rukmin Durgapersad

Evelyn V. Keyes

ORDER ON MOTION

Type of motion: Motion to suspend requirement for additional copies of appellant's brief Party filing motion: Appellant Document to be filed: __________ Is appeal accelerated? No If motion to extend time:

Original due date: __________
Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date:
Date Requested: __________

Ordered that motion is:

[ ] Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:
[ ] Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

[ ] Denied
[v] Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)
[ ] Other: __________
In conjunction with his appellant's brief, appellant filed a motion to suspend requirement for additional copies of appellant's brief, stating that appellant "is able to produce (2) copies of his appellate brief." Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.3(a)(1) states: "If a document is not electronically filed, a party must file the original and one unbound copy of the document . . . ." TEX. R. APP. P. 9.3(a)(1). Appellant has complied with this rule by filing two hard copies of his appellant's brief. Accordingly, we dismiss appellant's motion as moot.

Judge's signature: Evelyn V. Keyes

[v] Acting individually [ ] Acting for the Court
Panel consists of __________