Motion-Secondary: RIVER OAKS PROPERTY OWNERS INC vs. BARBOUTI, HAIDAR

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                CAUSE NO. 2022 03453

RIVER OAKS PROPERTY OWNERS,                                             IN THE DISTRICT COURT
INC.
         Plaintiff

                                                                        80TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT


HAIDAR BARBOUTI
         Defendant.                                                     HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

  PLAINTIFF RIVER OAKS PROPERTY OWNERS, INC.’S RESPONSE IN
  OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT 2300 RIVER OAKS, INC.’S MOTION FOR
                        CONTINUANCE

 TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

        Plaintiff River Oaks Property Owners, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or ROPO                 files this

 Response in Opposition to Defendant 2300 River Oaks, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Motion

 for Continuance in the above captioned matter, and respectfully shows the Court the

 following:

                Defendant 2300 River Oaks, Inc. filed its Unopposed Motion to

 Substitute Counsel on May 15, 2023. This was the third time in this case that

 Defendant has substituted counsel.

                Prior to filing its Motion, Defendant conferred with counsel for Plaintiff

 and counsel for Intervenor on the Motion Intervenor’s counsel asked                  Defendant’

 new counsel if the Motion for Subtitution would be conditioned on Defendant asking




  See Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Substitute on May 15, 2023.
  See Exhibit 1, Defendant’s counsel’s email to Intervenor’s counsel.


  LAINTIFF ROPO’       ESPONSE IN    PPOSITION TO     EFENDANT           IVER   AKS      OTION
 FOR ONTINUANCE                                                                         AGE OF
for more time, or a continuance. Defendant’s counsel responded, “no”. Defendant

also represented in its Motion that the Motion was not sought for purposes of delay

but so justice may be done.”

              Only three months later, Defendant has changed its position and is now

requesting a continuance of the current trial setting          The current trial setting is

September 25, 2023. As Intervenor pointed out in his Response to Plaintiff’s Motion,

there is nothing pending in this case that warrants a continuance. The parties are

continuing to conduct depositions as previously agreed on the timetable previously

agreed upon. This case is ready for trial and Defendant’s Motion for a Continuance

should be denied.

       WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff River Oaks Property

Owners, Inc. prays that the Court deny Defendant 2300 River Oaks, Inc.’s Motion

or Continuance and for any other relief, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff may

show itself to be justly entitled.

                                           Respectfully submitted,
                                           Roberts Markel Weinberg Butler Hailey




                                           Gregg S. Weinberg
                                           TBA No. 21084150
                                           gweinberg@rmwbh.com

 Id
 See Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Substitute on May 15, 2023.


 LAINTIFF ROPO’     ESPONSE IN    PPOSITION TO   EFENDANT          IVER   AKS     OTION
FOR ONTINUANCE                                                                   AGE OF
                                       Justin L. Spears
                                       TBA No. 24117086
                                       jspears@rmwbh.com
                                       2800 Post Oak Blvd., Floor 57
                                       Houston, TX 77056
                                       (713) 840 1666
                                       (800) 713 4625
                                       ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
                                       RIVER OAKS PROPERTY OWNERS,
                                       INC.




                          CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was
served upon counsel of record by facsimile, messenger, regular U.S. Mail, certified
mail, return receipt requested, commercial delivery, email and/or electronic service,
pursuant to the Tex. R. Civ. P. 21a this the    day of September 2023.




                                         REGG    EINBERG




 LAINTIFF ROPO’   ESPONSE IN   PPOSITION TO   EFENDANT     IVER   AKS       OTION
FOR ONTINUANCE                                                             AGE OF