Full Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-25-00997-CV Appellant, Bradford A. Clements// Cross-Appellants, Anne-Laure Cagniart-Singh and Harbir Singh v. Appellees, Anne-Laure Cagniart-Singh and Harbir Singh// Cross-Appellee, Bradford A. Clements FROM THE 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-GN-23-000634, THE HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM This case is before the Court on Appellant/Cross-Appellee Bradford A. Clements’s motion to abate and remand to the trial court. Clements’s brief was originally due on May 4, 2026. On that day, Clements requested a 45-day extension to file his brief, which we granted, making his brief due on June 18, 2026. On June 17, Clements filed another request for an extension, asking for an additional forty-five days to file his brief. We again granted this request, making his brief due on August 3, 2026. On August 4, rather than filing a brief or motion for extension of time, Clements filed a notice that “[t]he parties have exchanged settlement offers” and assured the Court that “[n]otice of settlement or a request for extension will be filed as soon as possible this week.” On August 17, we notified Clements that his brief was past-due and that his appeal would be subject to dismissal if he did not file a motion for extension of time or a brief accompanied by a motion for extension of time by August 27, 2026. On August 19, Clements filed another motion for extension of time, representing that “[t]he Parties have agreed on every settlement term . . . with the one exception being certain settlement terms controlling participation in professional grievances and regulatory matters that [Clements] strongly believes are in violation of Texas and California ethical rules and opinions.” Clements accused Appellees/Cross-Appellants Anne-Laure Cagniart-Singh and Habir Singh (the Singhs) of filing a grievance with the Texas Bar that included “wildly false allegations about [Clements’s] purported drinking and substance abuse problems.” Clements represented that he would “love to settle this case” but that he was “duty bound to not violate any ethical rules or opinions in Texas and California” and felt that the settlement terms affecting his participation in professional grievances violated his professional responsibility. Clements asked for an “indefinite[]” extension so that he could ask “for ethical opinions or other guidance from the Texas and California Bars” about the settlement offer. This Court granted the motion in part and extended the deadline for Clements to file his brief to September 3, 2026, a total of 122 days from May 4, the date his brief was originally due. On September 1, Clements filed a “Notice of Signed Settlement Agreement and Status Update,” representing to this Court that “the Parties reached a settlement agreement on August 6, 2026,” and that he “hope[d] to soon be filing the Joint Motion to Abate Pending Settlement.” On September 2, the Singhs filed a response to Clements’s notice of settlement agreement, representing that on August 6, “Clements accepted the Singhs’ settlement offer.” However, the Singhs represented that the settlement agreement was “contingent upon the execution of a mutually-acceptable Settlement Agreement and Release, which the parties were 2 required to cooperate in good faith to finalize.” After Clements’s August 19 motion for extension of time, “the Singhs unequivocally withdrew their settlement offer” after reading the “inflammatory and false statements” Clements made in the motion. The Singhs argued that Clements did not consider the August 6 settlement agreement binding and pointed to the statements Clements made in his past motions, such as the August 19 motion for extension of time in which he represented that “[t]he Parties have agreed on every settlement term . . . with . . . one exception” and that he “would love to settle this case . . . but is duty bound to not violate any ethical rules or opinions.” On September 3, Clements filed a motion to abate, in which he stated that he “now wishes to sue” the Singhs for breach of the settlement agreement and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Clements argues that this Court must abate the case to allow this suit to proceed. Clements cited to Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals, in which the Texas Supreme Court held that, in similar circumstances, “the court of appeals did abuse its discretion by refusing to abate the appeal pending resolution of the enforcement suit” because “[i]t makes no sense for the court of appeals to expend its resources, and require the parties to expend theirs, on an appeal which may be moot.” 925 S.W.2d 656, 659 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding). In Mantas, the party seeking abatement had already filed a separate breach-of-contract suit. See id. at 658. Here, Clements merely represents that he “now wishes” to file similar causes of action. Clements is free to do so or not do so, but the record does not include any indication that he has already done so. Out of an abundance of caution, and in keeping with the holding of Mantas, we grant in part Clements’s motion. See id. at 659; Sharifi v. Sharifi, No. 03-14-00126-CV, 2014 WL 4536568, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Sep. 12, 2014, no 3 pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam). We abate this appeal but do not remand it to the trial court. Clements must file either a motion to reinstate this appeal or a report advising us of the status of any enforcement proceedings by no later than October 16, 2026. A failure to do so may result in dismissal of Clements’s appeal. Cf. Sampson v. Ayala, No. 14-08-01002-CV, 2010 WL 1438932, at *8 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 13, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.). It is so ordered on October 2, 2026. Before Justices Triana, Crump, and Ellis Abated Filed: October 2, 2026 4