in Re Shilpa B. Trivedi ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                               COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
    FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
    ORDER
    Appellate case name:        In re Shilpa B. Trivedi, Relator
    Appellate case number:      01-16-00804-CV
    Trial court case number:    2014-54049
    Trial court:                215th District Court of Harris County
    On October 14, 2016, the relator, Shilpa B. Trivedi filed a petition for a writ of
    mandamus seeking to vacate the respondent trial judge’s August 9, 2016 order directing
    that relator’s pleadings be struck if she fails to pay $41,574.38 in attorneys’ fees within
    60 days of that order. With the petition, relator has filed an emergency motion seeking a
    stay of the August 9, 2016 sanctions order and a stay of the emergency hearing set for
    October 21, 2016, on several issues related to attorney’s fees and other matters.
    Although relator’s emergency motion contains a certificate of service, it fails to
    contain the required certificate of compliance that all parties have been notified by
    expedited means that an emergency motion for temporary relief has been or will be filed.
    See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(a). Accordingly, we DENY relator’s emergency motion
    without prejudice to refiling within 3 days of the date of this order an amended
    emergency motion to stay that contains a certificate of compliance. See 
    id. In addition,
    while relator’s appendix contains two cover pages with district clerk
    image numbers for the exhibits, it fails to contain a single index with page numbers for
    all exhibits and the bookmarks fail to link to those exhibits. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(h)
    (“An electronically filed record in an original proceeding . . . that includes more than one
    item must contain bookmarks to assist in locating each item.”). Thus, we ORDER
    relator, within 3 days of the date of this order, to file a supplemental record with an
    index with page numbers and bookmarks that link to the exhibits. See 
    id. 9.4(h), 52.7(b).
           Finally, the Court requests a response to the petition for writ of mandamus by any
    real party in interest. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b)(1). The response, if any, shall be filed
    within 30 days from the date of this order. See 
    id. 2, 52.4.
    It is so ORDERED.
    Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Higley
    X Acting individually      Acting for the Court
    Date: October 14, 2016
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-16-00804-CV

Filed Date: 10/14/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2016