Jose "Joe" Hinojosa v. Firefighters & Police Officers' Civil Service Commission of the City of Laredo, Texas Irma Mireles, Vidal Cantu, Jr. & Jesus Torres

ACCEPTED 04-15-00414-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 11/6/2015 11:35:04 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK

No. 04-15-00414-CV __________________________________________________________________ FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS IN THE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS 11/6/2015 11:35:04 PM FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk __________________________________________________________________

JOSE (JOE) HINOJOSA Appellant

v.

FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAREDO, et. Al. Appellee __________________________________________________________________

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND TO SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL __________________________________________________________________

Jose HinoJosa, Appellant requests this Court to extend the time to file a motion for rehearing and to substitute new appellate counsel and shows: 1. This motion is filed on Friday, November 6, 2015, fifteen days after the last date to file a motion for rehearing, October 22, 2015. 2. This Court has the authority to grant such extensions, Rule 49.8 Tex. Rule App. Proc., Stagel v. Parker, 945 S.W.2d 114, 114 (Tex. 1997). 3. Appellant seeks an extension to Monday, November 9, 2015 in order to file his motion for rehearing.

Page -1-4. No previous extensions have bee granted. 5. A reasonable explanation for this extension as follows. Appellant attempted to seek his remedy by mandamus in this and the Texas Supreme Court. Both petitions were denied. This appeal was perfected. However, a disagreement arose between Appellant and his appellate counsel, Mr. Murry Malakoff. This disagreement covered the costs as well as other matter. Mr. Malakoff sought to withdraw from the appeal. This Court denied that motion. On October 22, 2015, the Court of Appeals dismissed that appeal for non-prosecution, to wit, the clerk’s record. This case was tried in district court below on an agreed fact statement. No court reporter was necessary. The merits of this appeal revolve on a question of law. New counsel, Mr. Bruce W. Cobb, with permission of Mr. Malakoff contacted Appellant through his union representative. New counsel was informed that Hinjosa would welcome Mr. Cobbs assistance with this appeal. Mr. Cobb was not able to get in the case earlier becuase of the conflict between Mr. Hinojosa and Mr. Malakoff. Mr. Cobb wants to make a new designation of the clerk’s record which is a lot less expensive and to xcontinue the appeal. If that is done, this case may be ready to be submitted within sixty (60) day. Mr. Hinojosa would request this Court to relieve Mr. Malakoff from any further representation and give Mr. Cobb a chance to assist him in this appeal. 6. For some reason, new counsel has not been able to contact opposing counsel.

Page -2-New counsel does not know whether this motion for extension will be opposed.

WHEREFORE, Appellant Jose Hinojosa, Appellant moves for an extension of time to file a motion for rehearing and to substitute new appellate counsel.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Bruce W. Cobb Bruce W. Cobb Texas Bar No. 04431900 3280 Delaware Beaumont, Texas 77703 Office: (409) 899-3360 Fax: (409) 899-3372

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

On November 6, 2015, I certify that I attempted to contact Mr. Ryan S. Henry, counsel for the Appellees, but could not make contact. I donot know if he opposes the extension.

/s/ Bruce W. Cobb Bruce W. Cobb

Page -3-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify on this 6th day of November, 2015; I served a true copy of the Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time by Tex E-File.

/s/ Bruce W. Cobb Bruce W. Cobb

Page -4-