January 6, 2015 RECEIVED CAUSE NO. 03-14-00374-CV | JAN 0 6 2015 THIRD COURTOfAPPEALS 'gffnCYD.KYIF- COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT AUSTIN, TEXAS

C&M JONES INVESTMENTS, Appellant, v.

DONOVAN THOMAS, Appellee.

On Appeal from the County Court at Law Cause No. 5729 of Caldwell County, Texas, the Honorable Edward L. Jarrett, Presiding

APPELLANT'S RESPONSE TO APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLEE'S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS:

The Appellant, DONOVAN THOMAS, files this Response to Appellee's Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellee's Brief. In opposition to Appellee's motion, Appellant submits the following:

Appellant's Response to Appellee's Motion For Extension Of Time To File Appelle's Brief Page 1 of 4 I.

DUE DATE

Appellee's brief was due on November 20, 2014. At that time, counsel for Appellee sought an extension until December 18, 2014 on grounds that counsel for Appellee was preparing and submitting a brief in Cause No. 03-14-00598, styled C.R. v. Texas Dep't ofFamily and Protective Services. The court granted Appellee an extension to file its brief until December 18,2014.

Thereafter, on December 18th, 2014, counsel for Appellee filed a second Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief on the grounds that counsel for Appellee was preparing for two jury trials and had suffered physical illness resulting in ten days of missed work over the previous thirty days. Counsel for Appellee asked for an extension until January 5, 2015, which this Court granted.

Then, once again, on the due date for filing Appellee's brief, counsel for Appellee requested a third extension, until January 19, 2014, on the grounds that counsel for Appellee has "endured strep throat for about 10 days."

II.

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE In all three of Appellee's motionsfor extension of time to file brief, counsel for Appellee has included a certificate of conference in which counsel for Appellee stated that he "previously conferred or attempted to confer with Donovan Thomas (Appellant)." This statement is false in that counsel for Appellee has not conferred with Appellant on any of the three motions filed with this Court by counsel for Appellee. Instead, counsel for Appellee has merely faxed over a copy of the proposed motion for extension of time to file brief. As with the previous two motions,

Appellant's Response to Appellee's Motion For Extension Of Time To File Appelle's Brief Page 2 of 4 Appellant opposes this motion; however, counsel for Appellee has failed to indicate Appellant's opposition in any of its previous motions.

III.

EXTENSION SOUGHT FOR DELAY

Counsel for Appellee has now sought three delays on the grounds that he has work (i.e., prior briefs or jury cases) or that he has suffered some type of unconfirmed illness. At this point, it seems counsel for Appellee seeks this extension either for the purpose of delay, or, possibly, for an inability to balance workload.

Appellant, who is proceeding pro se and, thus, has no formal legal training, submitted his brief after seeking a single extension. Further, Appellant is a small business owner that runs and manages two chiropractic offices in Hays and Caldwell counties and, yet, did not seek an extension due to workload as counsel for Appellee has done on two previous occasions.

While Appellant and counsel for Appellee are both small business owners, Appellant managed to run two chiropractic offices and drafta briefafter seeking only one extension. It is the opinion of Appellant that counsel for Appellee should be able to manage the same.

If this Court grants Appellee's third motion for extension, it would provide counsel for Appellee an additional two months from the original due date in which to prepare a reply brief.

Thus, the issue, in the eyes of Appellant, is whether counsel for Appellee needed almost three months to draft a reply brief or, more likely, is seekingan extension solely for the purpose of delay.

V. PRAYER FOR DENIAL OF EXTENSION

Appellant's Response to Appellee's Motion For Extension Of Time To File Appelle's Brief Page 3 of 4 WHEREFORE. PREMISES CONSIDERED. Appellant objects to Appellee's Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief, and respectfully requests this Court to deny the same.

Respectfully submitted.

^ ^ V UUl onovan Thomas Appellant, Pro Se 2000 W. San Antonio Street, Unit #3 Lockhart, Texas 78644 Tel: (512) 227-2500 Fax:(512)398-6040

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of this response has been served upon Appellee's counsel as indicated below on January 6, 2015: Via Fax (512) 353-7483 Cliff McCormack S. Guadalupe St., Suite 106 San Marcos, Texas 78666 Counsel for Appellee C&M Jones Investments ^M c-v

Donovan Thomas

Appellant's Response to Appellee's Motion For Extension Of Time To File Appelle's Brief Page 4 of 4