The Court of Appeals for the Ninth District in Houston, Texas rendered its opinion and judgment in D o y l e J .

Petitioner relies on the following facts as a reasonable explanation for the requested extension of time: Counsel for the petitioner, as a result of a failure to provide a safe working environment on the part of his commercial landlord, resulting from an incident of violence directed toward two female staff member, compounded by additional factors, was required to relocate the law firm, which represents petitioner, on extremely short notice and within which lay the original deadline for filing the petition for review; all of which precluded the preparation of a comprehensive, thoughtful, well reason and well supported petition.

Therefore, Petitioner prays that this Court grant this motion for extension of time.

R. App. P. 10.1(a)(5), I certify that I have attempted conference with James B. Edwards, Edwards & Associates and Scott B. Novak, Lorance & Thompson, who are presumed opposed.

STYLE: BLEVINS v. BISHAI Today the Supreme Court of Texas received and filed a motion for extension of time to file petition for review pursuant to Rule 53.7(f) in the above numbered and styled case.

STYLE: BLEVINS v. BISHAI Today the Supreme Court of Texas received and filed a motion for extension of time to file petition for review pursuant to Rule 53.7(f) in the above numbered and styled case.

STYLE: BLEVINS v. BISHAI Today the Supreme Court of Texas received and filed a motion for extension of time to file petition for review pursuant to Rule 53.7(f) in the above numbered and styled case.

STYLE: BLEVINS v. BISHAI Today the Supreme Court of Texas received and filed a motion for extension of time to file petition for review pursuant to Rule 53.7(f) in the above numbered and styled case.

When counsel selected “Supreme Court” for filing, the E-File Texas system returned the following message: “No Cases match this filter”.

Counsel, due to the inability of counsel’s new premises IT department to effectively connect counsel with the data hub housed on its server, did not learn of the return of filing until it logged in today, August 22, 2017, for filing of the subsequent document to this case.

As the Clerk for the 9th subsequently directed the motion be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court, and, as the Court has a history of accepting incorrect, but out of time, filings with instructions to perfect for filing in cases past, and, as Respondent in this case is in no way prejudiced by its acceptance, counsel for petitioner requests that its first Motion for Extension of Time to File, filed in good faith with the Court from which this case is appealed, be accepted as timely filed.

R. App. P. 10.1(a)(5), I certify that I have attempted conference with James B. Edwards, Edwards & Associates and Scott B. Novak, Lorance & Thompson, who are presumed opposed.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth District in Houston, Texas rendered its opinion and judgment in D o y l e J .

Counsel for the Petitioner, as a result of a failure to provide a safe working environment on the part of his commercial landlord, resulting from an incident of violence directed toward two female staff member, compounded by additional factors, was required to relocate the law firm, which represents Petitioner, on extremely short notice and within which lay the original deadline for filing the Petition for Review.

which, in turn, formed the basis for Petitioner’s First Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review, the firm which represents Petitioner was beset with a series of logistical problems, most notably which has been the inability of the new location to provide proper support in connecting the firm to its client data and email hub server, hamstringing the firm in effectively reconnecting with its’ clients and attendant obligations.

Due to this impaired accessibility to case materials, counsel for Petitioner herein requests an extension of time of 14 days, to September 9, 2017, to file its Petition for Review.

STYLE: BLEVINS v. BISHAI Today the Supreme Court of Texas received and filed a second motion for extension of time to file petition for review pursuant to Rule 53.7(f) in the above numbered and styled case.

STYLE: BLEVINS v. BISHAI Today the Supreme Court of Texas received and filed a second motion for extension of time to file petition for review pursuant to Rule 53.7(f) in the above numbered and styled case.

STYLE: BLEVINS v. BISHAI Today the Supreme Court of Texas received and filed a second motion for extension of time to file petition for review pursuant to Rule 53.7(f) in the above numbered and styled case.

STYLE: BLEVINS v. BISHAI Today the Supreme Court of Texas received and filed a second motion for extension of time to file petition for review pursuant to Rule 53.7(f) in the above numbered and styled case.