Brigetta Homes, LLC v. Hermus

Full title: BRIGETTA HOMES, LLC d/b/a BEAUTIFUL HOMES BY BRIGETTA AND BRIGETTA…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Date published: Apr 4, 2019

No. 05-18-01126-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 4, 2019)

Opinion

No. 05-18-01126-CV

04-04-2019

BRIGETTA HOMES, LLC d/b/a BEAUTIFUL HOMES BY BRIGETTA AND BRIGETTA D'OLIVIO Plaintiffs- Appellants v. ERHARD HERMUS, Defendant-Appellee

Brigetta D'Olivio Appellant Pro Se 3800 Pebblecreek Ct. Apt. 120 Piano, TX 75023 214-733-7204 beautifulhomesbybrigetta@gmail.com

BRIGETTA D'OLIVIO
3800 Pebblecreek Ct.
Apt. 120
Piano, TX 75023
214-733-7204
beautifulhomesbybrigetta@gmail.com Lisa Matz
Clerk of the Court, Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
George L. Allen Sr. Courts Building
600 Commerce St Ste.200
Dallas, TX 75202 Re: Appellant's 2^nd Amended Emergency Motion To Extend Time To File Appellant Brief

Case No.: 05-18-01126-CV

Tr. Ct Cause No.: DC-16-14449 Dear Ms. Matz, Appellant, Brigetta D'Olivio has moved the Court of Appeals by filing; Appellants' 2^nd Amended Emergency Motion to Extend Time to File Appellant's Brief dated April 4, 2019. Appellant filed the Appellants' Amended Emergency Motion to Extend Time to File Appellant's Brief on March 26, 2019 and wherein, the Court of Appeals has not issued an Order. Respectfully Yours, /s/
Brigetta D'Olivio
Appellant, Pro-Se On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Tr. Ct. No. DC-16-14449 APPELLANT'S 2^nd AMENDED EMERGENCY MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF

TO THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS:

The undersigned, Brigetta D'Olivio, Appellant Pro Se, files Appellant's 2^ndAmended Emergency Motion To Extend Time To File Appellant's Brief from March 31, 2019 to May 10, 2019, and would show the Court as follows: The within 2^nd amended emergency motion contains the same information as Appellant's 1^st amended emergency motion, except for new information in par. 49-82 and additional documents attached as exhibits 30-33. 1. Pursuant to Rules 10.3(a)(1) and 10.3(a)(3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appellant files the within Appellant's 2^nd Amended Emergency Motion To Extend Time To File Appellant's Brief. 2. Pursuant to Rule 10.5(b)(1)(a) of TRAP, Appellant's Brief is due on March 31, 2018. 3. This is an appeal from a final judgment, dated August 13, 2018. 4. On September 25, 2018, Appellant filed Notice of Appeal. 5. This is Appellant Pro Se's 3^rd request to extend time to file her Brief. 6. Appellant's 2^nd Amended Emergency Motion To Extend Time To File Appellant Brief is sought, not for purposes of delay, but in the interest of justice. 7. There are extraordinary circumstances that have led to the filing of the within amended emergency motion. 8. The extension of time will not harm the Appellees, but the denial of an extension of time will cause irreparable harm and prejudice to Appellant. 9. In an Order, dated February 20, 2019, the Court of Appeals, ordered the District Clerk, Felicia Pitre, to file the twenty-two (22) records that had been previously requested or to file written verification that any of said records do not exist, by March 12, 2019. 10. In said Order, dated February 20, 2019, the Court further ordered the Official Court Reporter for the 68^th District Court, Antionette Reagor to file the five (5) hearings that had been previously requested or to file written verification that no records was taken on any of the dates, (Exhibit 1, Order, dated February 20, 2019). 11. On March 18, 2019, the Clerk of the Court of Appeals provided Appellant with a CD. Appellant received the CD for review of the Clerk's and Reporter's Records and Supplemental Records.

AS PER THE REPORTER'S RECORD

12. On the same date, March 18, 2019, at 6:03pm, Lisa Matz, Clerk, emailed Appellant, wherein she informed Appellant that a supplemental reporter's records had been filed, (Exhibit, 2, Email, dated March 18, 2019). 13. In Antionette Reagor's filing with the Court of Appeals, which was dated-stamped on Sunday, March 17, 2019, at 2:35pm, she stated that Appellant had only made one request for correction to the reporter's record and that there had been no changes to the transcripts themselves. She further stated that she had cc'd Appellant via US Postal. All three (3) statements made by Reagor are false. Ms. Reagor, has failed to comply with said Order, dated Feb. 20, 2019. (Exhibit 3, Filing by Antionette Reagor, dated March 17, 2019). 14. Said Order required Ms. Reagor to file the requested additional reporter records. Appellant had previously requested a supplemental record(s) of five (5), on more than one occasion. Ms. Reagor was ordered to file the requested records by March 12, 2019. Ms. Reagor not only failed to file the requested additional reporter records, she failed to comply with said Order, again. Appellant's requested additional reporter's records, were as follows:

• Hearing, dated September 18, 2017
• Hearing, dated January 22, 2018
• Hearing, dated March 30, 2018
• Hearing, dated June 4, 2018
• Hearing, dated August 13, 2018

15. Instead of filing said five (5) supplemental reporter's records, Ms. Reagor filed duplicates of the hearing transcripts that had been previously filed. Ms. Reagor has continued to ignore and, is unresponsive to Appellant's requests for said supplemental hearing transcripts, to be prepared and filed as part of the Appellate record. 16. Ms. Reagor's failure, to comply with said Order, will cause Appellant harm and prejudice Appellant, since, without a complete record on appeal, Appellant's ability to address the appealable issues is adversely affected. Without said hearing transcripts, Appellant is further hampered in her ability to accurately cite the record, in Appellant's Brief.

Background of Antionette Reagor's Handling of Appellant's Requests and

Supplemental Requests For Reporter's Records

17. On October 16, 2018, the Court of Appeals (COA) sent a postcard to Ms. Reagor, informing her that the reporter's record was overdue and directed her to file the reporter's record in 30 days. Ms. Reagor was to file the reporter's record by November 16, 2018. 18. On October 22, 2018, Ms. Reagor sent Court of Appeals a letter stating that there had been no reporter's record requested. The Court of Appeals, subsequently contacted Appellant's former attorney, Timothy Hootman (Hootman) regarding the reporter's record. 19. On November 5, 2018, Hootman informed the COA via a letter, dated November 5, 2018, that Appellant had requested the reporter's record on October, 29, 2018, (Exhibit 4, Appellant's Request For Reporter's Record, dated October 29, 2018). 20. On November 15, 2018, Hootman sent another letter to the COA, wherein he stated that he had attempted to contact Ms. Reagor numerous times regarding payment for the requested reporter's records, but that he had been unable to speak with her. Ms. Reagor was unresponsive to requests made by Hootman, on behalf of Appellant (Exhibit 5 Letter, dated November 15, 2018). 21. On November 16, 2018, Hootman notified COA that Reagor had contacted him and would prepare the reporter's record and provide Hootman with payment information. 22. On November 20, 2018, the COA sent a copy of an Order, dated November 20, 2018, to Ms. Reagor, wherein she was ordered to 1) file the reporter's record within 30 days of said order; or 2) file written verification that Appellant has not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the reporter's record. Said Order would make the due date for the reporter's record no later than December 20, 2018, (Exhibit 6, Order, dated November 20, 2018). 23. Despite having been in receipt of Appellant's Request For Reporter's Record since October 29, 2018, Ms. Reagor failed to send an Invoice for said request, and did so only, after, said Order, dated November 20, 2018 was sent to her thereby appearing that the only way Ms. Reagor would prepare the reporter's record for Appellant, would only be after the COA orders her to do so. 24. On Nov. 26, 2018 @ 9:52PM, Ms. Reagor sent Hootman (also cc'd Judge Hoffman) an email about the Invoice she had previously sent him on November 20, 2018. In said email, Reagor stated, in part, "On November 20, 2018, I received an Order from the Court of Appeals stating that the Reporter's Record must be filed with the Court within 30 days of receipt of their Order. Also, on November 20^th, I emailed you a deposit invoice..." (Exhibit 7, Email, dated November 26, 2018). 25. On the same date, Hootman forwarded said email to Appellant, but did not attach said invoice. 26. On November 27, 2018, Appellant sent a reply email to Hootman. In said email, she stated, "No invoice attached. I overnighted you $698.00 and texted you the receipt for that invoice. That should have been paid. I'm not sure which invoice you're talking about. I do not have a new invoice. Please forward". 27. On the same day, Nov. 27, 2018, Hootman forwarded to Appellant the email he had received from Ms. Reagor on Nov. 20, 2018. In said email, Ms. Reagor states, in part, "As soon as payment is received, we will begin preparation of the transcripts". (Exhibit 8, Email, dated November 27, 2018 @10:11am; Email, dated November 27, 2018 @10:19am; Forwarded Email, dated November 20, 2018). 28. Attached to said email was an invoice, dated Nov. 20, 2018. The amount of said invoice for three (3) hearing transcripts was $576.00. The business name for the court reporting firm under which Ms. Reagor sent said Invoice, dated Nov. 20, 2018, was "Court Reporting Preeminence", which stated its address as "68th District Court, 600 Commerce St, Suite 510-C, Desoto, TX 75115, (Exhibit 9, Invoice, dated November 20, 2018). 29. Upon receiving said invoice from Hootman on Nov. 27, 2018, Appellant sent reply email to Hootman on same date at 10:23 AM, "Okay I will have the money to you by the end of the day overnighted or first thing tomorrow morning, not a problem. Thank you...". 30. The following day, on November 28, 2018, Appellant sent three (3) text messages to Hootman. Said texts included copy of money order, (no: 25032839815) for $576.00 for said Nov. 20, 2018 invoice; copy of said priority mail in which said money order was sent and copy of said invoice. 31. On November 28, 2018 and November 29, 2018, Appellant sent two (2) texts to Hootman to confirm that the invoice for said reporter's record request was paid and that the transcript for the hearing on May 7, 2018 had also been ordered (Hootman filed an Amended Request one day after the original request for reporter record), (Exhibit 10, Email, dated Nov. 27, 2018; Text Messages, dated Nov. 28-Nov. 29, 2018). 32. On the day said reporter's record was due, which was December 20, 2018, (more than three weeks after, Ms. Reagor received payment in full, for the November 20 2018 Invoice), Ms. Reagor requested an extension to file the reporter's record. In her request for an extension, Ms. Reagor cited two (2) reasons. Her first reason was because she stated that she had received payment for said invoice of $576.00 "sometime last week", (Exhibit 11, Request For Extension, dated December 20, 2018). 33. In Ms. Reagor's email to Hootman, on Nov. 20, 2018, which Hootman forwarded to Appellant for the first time on Nov. 27, 2018, Ms. Reagor stated, in part, "As soon as payment is received, we will begin preparation of the transcripts". As previously stated, said invoice was paid, in full, on Nov. 28, 2018, which was twenty-two (22) days prior to Ms. Reagor's request for extension. (Exhibit 10, Email, dated Nov. 27, 2018; Text Messages, dated Nov. 28-Nov. 29, 2018). 34. Ms. Reagor's second reason for an extension, Ms. Reagor states, "Also, I have just been reminded by counsel of the Amended Request asking to include an additional hearing to the record" (the amended request was for one hearing date, May 7, 2018) 35. Said "Amended Request" was filed fifty-one (51) days prior to her request for extension on December 20, 2018. Said Amended Request For Reporter's Record, was filed on October 30, 2018. During the fifty-one (51) days, Ms. Reagor did not even send an invoice for said additional request (Exhibit 12, Appellant's Amended Request For Reporter's Record, dated and filed Oct. 30, 2018). 36. Ms. Reagor's request for extension, dated December 20, 2018 was granted in an Order, dated December 27, 2018. In said Order, Ms. Reagor was required to file said reporter record transcripts (requested on October 29, 2018 and the amended request filed on October 30, 2018) by January 20, 2019, (Exhibit 13, Order, dated December 27, 2018). 37. On January 15, 2019, Ms. Reagor was informed by the Court, via email, that Hootman was no longer Appellant's attorney, (Exhibit 14, Order, dated January 15, 2019). 38. Although the new deadline for the reporter's record was January, 20, 2019, and although Ms. Reagor certified said four (4) transcripts on January 4, 2019, she did not file them with the Court until twenty-six (26) days later, on January 30, 2019, which was ten (10) days after the due date deadline of January 20, 2019. 39. Despite having been made aware by the Court on January 15, 2019 that Hootman was no longer the attorney for Appellant, on the same day that Ms. Reagor filed the reporter's record with the COA on January 30, 2019, she sent an email to Appellant's former attorney, Hootman, wherein she attached copies of said hearing transcripts. 40. In said email, dated January 30, 2019, Reagor states, in part, "FYI, the reporter's record has just been filed with the Court of Appeals. Your copies are attached....", (Exhibit 15, Email, dated January 30, 2019 @ 11:37pm). 41. At no time, has Ms. Reagor emailed Appellant regarding the filing of said hearing transcripts. Although Appellant paid for said hearing transcripts, Ms. Reagor never provided Appellant with an original, nor a copy, of any of said hearing transcripts. The originals were sent to Hootman, which, after certifying said transcripts on January 4, 2019, Reagor also then sent the certified copies to Hootman, (Refer to Exhibit 9, Invoice, dated Nov. 20, 2018). 42. On January 31, 2019, Hootman forwarded Ms. Reagor's January 30, 2019 email with attachments to Appellant. Included in the transcripts that Ms. Reagor had sent to Hootman, after he had been released as Appellant's attorney, was a transcript for a hearing that took place on September 18, 2017, (Exhibit 16, Transcript for Hearing on "Motion To Withdraw", dated September 18, 2017). 43. Said transcript was prepared for an appeal that Appellant had taken on September 25, 2017 in reference to an Order, dated September 18, 2017. Said Order was a result of said hearing on September 18, 2017 for said Motion To Withdraw. 44. On the last page of said transcript (pg. 35), Ms. Reagor states, in part, "I certify that the total cost for the preparation of this Reporter's Record is $210.00 and was paid by Counsel for Plaintiff", yet Ms. Reagor stated to the COA, at that time, that said transcript was not paid for, (Exhibit 16, Transcript, Hearing for Motion To Withdraw, dated September 18, 2017, p. 35, and Exhibit 17, Court Portal, dated March 22, 2019, p. 8). 45. At the time Ms. Reagor certified said transcript, Appellant did not have an attorney, and therefore, "counsel for Plaintiff" could not have paid for said transcript. 46. Ms. Reagor had no permission to send said transcript to Hootman, since at that time, i) Hootman was not Appellant's attorney; and ii) said transcript, was not part of the requested reporter's record made by Hootman on October 29, 2018 and October 30, 2018. 47. Where Ms. Reagor sent said transcript to Hootman, she has never provided said transcript to Appellant. Moreover, she has never filed said transcript with the COA despite the fact that said transcript, dated September 18, 2017, is, in fact, one of the five (5) hearing transcripts Ms. Reagor was ordered to file with the COA by March 12, 2019. 48. After having received said forwarded email from Hootman on January 31, 2019, wherein said September 18, 2017, hearing transcript was attached, Appellant sent Ms. Reagor a letter on February 12, 2019, wherein she requested certain information, including hearing transcripts for June 4, 2018 and August 13, 2018. Ms. Reagor has not responded to said letter, (Exhibit 18, Letter, dated February 12, 2019). 49. At the time that Appellant had received said Invoice, dated November, 20, 2018 and had sent said letter, dated February 12, 2019, she was not aware that the court reporting firm, "Court Reporting Preeminence", under which Ms. Reagor billed for transcribing said hearings, and which was listed on said Invoice, is not certified as a court reporting firm, (Exhibit 30, JBCC search results for "Court Reporting Preeminence", as of April 3, 2019). 50. At the time Ms. Reagor sent said Invoice on November 20, 2018, with the listed business name, "Court Reporting Preeminence", said business no longer existed. It had expired eleven months prior, on January 9, 2018, (Exhibit 19, Dallas County Clerk record, Assumed Name, "Court Reporting Preeminence", dated January 9, 2008. See also Exhibit 9, Invoice, dated November 20, 2018).

Five (5) Hearing Transcripts Still NOT Filed With COA

51. Since Reagor did not respond to Appellant's letter and request on February 12, 2019, Appellant filed the February 19, 2019 Supplemental Reporter's Record Request. In said supplemental reporter's request, Appellant requested the five (5) hearing transcripts. Said request is also posted on the Court Portal for February 19, 2019, (Exhibit 20, Supplemental Request For Reporter's Record, dated February 19, 2019 and Court Portal, dated February 28, 2019, p. 32). 52. Despite being aware of said supplemental request via the filing of such in the 68^th Judicial District Court Clerk's office, and despite having been further aware of said supplemental reporter's request in said Order, dated February 20, 2019, Ms. Reagor has continued to ignore said request by Appellant and has not even sent an Invoice for said supplemental request. 53. Rule 35.3(b)(c) of TRAP requires the Court Reporter to timely file reporter's records. As of this date, Ms. Reagor has not even filed a request for extension to file said supplemental requests for reporter's record. As such, the following five (5) hearing transcripts have not been filed with the COA:

• September 18, 2017 (not filed with COA, but sent to atty Hootman on 1/30/2019)
• January 22, 2018
• March 30, 2018
• June 4, 2018
• August 13, 2018

54. On March 25, 2019, Appellant sent another letter to Ms. Reagor for corrections to said reporter's record, (Exhibit 21, Letter, dated March 25, 2019). 55. As of this date, April 3, 2019, it has now been fifty-two (52) days since Appellant filed her Supplemental Reporter's Records request for said five (5) hearing transcripts, fifty-nine days (59) since Appellant's reporter's records request of February 12, 2019 and twenty-two (22) days since the filing deadline of March 12, 2019 for said five (5) hearing transcripts. 56. As of this date, April 3, 2019, Ms. Reagor has continued to ignore Appellant's request for said five (5) hearing transcripts; has continued to ignore Appellant's requests for corrections; has failed to send any invoices for any of said five (5) hearing transcripts and has continued to fail to comply with said Order, dated February 20, 2019. 57. Appellant is entitled to have a complete record on appeal. Where Appellant has filed legitimate reporter's record requests, Ms. Reagor's failure to respond to those requests, by either filing said five (5) hearing transcripts or by filing written verification that a record of each of said hearings was not had, has the effect of not only causing the record on appeal to be incomplete, but it also has the prejudicial effect on Appellant's ability to file a brief reflective of, and supported by, the record.

AS PER THE CLERK'S RECORD

58. As per the Order, dated February 20, 2019, where Antionette Reagor, the official court reporter for the 68^th District Court, was required to file the Appellant's additional requests including previously filed supplemental requests (February 19, 2019-said five (5) hearing transcripts) by March 12, 2019 and failed to comply with said Order, the Dallas County District Clerk, Felicia Pitre was also required to file the twenty-two (22) records that had been previously requested but not filed. In both cases, where the record and or hearing did not exist, then a written verification was to be filed. 59. In her certification, Felicia Pitre states that all records were filed. In her certification, she states that three (3) records were not filed. Said records included:

• Emails, dated March 14, 2018 through March 19, 2018 between Ms. Pinson and Appellant;
• Order, dated September 18, 2017
• Email with Notice of Submission, dated August 16, 2018

60. As for the "Pinson Emails", which is listed as #17 in the Master Index, (p.179), wherein it states, "not located", said emails do exist and are attached hereto. See (Exhibit 22, Emails, dated March 14, 2018 through March 19, 2018 between Appellant and Ms. Pinson). 61. As per the Order, dated September 18, 2017, which was in relation to the hearing for the Motion To Withdraw, which was held on September 18, 2017 (Hearing transcript Ms. Reagor sent to Hootman and Judge Hoffman), said Order also exists. Said Order was specifically for said Motion To Withdraw. On the Court Portal, dated September 21, 2018, on p. 6, for the date, September 18, 2017, it specifically refers to Motion To Withdraw, and the hearing that was held on said date, (Exhibit 23, Court Portal, dated September 21, 2018, p. 6). 62. Furthermore, the September 18, 2017 hearing transcript, which was provided to Hootman on January 30, 2019 by court reporter, Antionette Reagor, and said email from Ms. Reagor to Hootman, on January 30, 2019, both specifically refer to said Hearing of September 18, 2017 to be in reference to the "Motion To Withdraw". Said Order on the Motion To Withdraw, dated September 18, 2017, was a result of said hearing, (See Exhibit 15, Email, dated January 30, 2019, and Exhibit 16, Transcript, for Motion To Withdraw, Hearing date, September 18, 2017). 63. As for the Notice of Submission and email (Ms. Pitre states that they do not exist and/or are not filed), said Notice of Submission was a result of a request for a submission date in correspondence, dated August 6, 2018, which was filed with the 68^th Judicial District Court on August 8, 2018, (Exhibit 24, Letter, dated August 6, 2018). 64. Said request for submission does exist, and was, in fact, Granted on August 16, 2018 and said Notice of Submission was sent via email from Ms. Pinson to Appellant. The subject line, of said email from Ms. Pinson stated, "REQUEST FOR SUBMISSION-GRANTED". 65. Attached to said email was the Notice of Submission, from J. Hoffman. Said Notice of Submission was dated, August 16, 2018. Moreover, on the Court Portal, dated March 22, 2019, for the date "8/16/2018", it specifically states, "Request For Submission Was Granted and Emailed To All Parties Today". 66. For the Court Clerk to claim that this record also does not exist, or was "not located" is disingenuous, (Exhibit 25, Email, dated August 16, 2016 withNotice of Submission"; Court Portal, dated March 22, 2019, p29; and Notice of Submission, printed from said Court Portal, dated August 16, 2018). 67. Clearly said three (3) documents exist and, therefore, where said Clerk's Record, Master Index states that said documents are "not located" and where Ms. Pitre have "excepted" them in her certification, can only be construed as hiding said documents/records. 68. As for another Clerk's Record requested by Appellant, which was the SIGNED Protective Order, dated May 24, 2018, the Ms. Pitre instead, sent the UNSIGNED proposed Order to the COA. 69. On March 25, 2019, Appellant filed a Supplemental Clerk's Record, wherein nine (9) records were requested, (at least 2 of which were re-requested since the court clerks had previously stated they were "not located"), (Refer to Exhibit 29, Supplemental Clerk Records Request, p. 10). 70. On March 28, 2019, Ms. Pitre filed said clerks records request with the Court of Appeals. Two (2) of said clerk records request, Ms. Pitre stated, "NOT LOCATED", and one (1) of said clerk records request, Ms. Pitre simply refiled the incorrect record, despite the existence of the correct record, (Exhibit 31, Clerk's Record Filing with the COA, dated March 28, 2019). 71. On p. 3 of er filing, for number 15, "Notice of Intent To Dismiss", Ms. Pitre stated that it was "not located". Not only does said record exist, but it is also listed on the Court Portal, and therefore, "locatable". 72. Said Notice of Intent To Dismiss, dated March 30, 2018, was provided to Appellant, Appellee's attorney, Maurice Klein, and attorney Robert M. Clark, who had withdrawn in August 2017¹, (Exhibit 32, Notice Of intent To Dismiss, dated March 30, 2018). 73. On p. 3, number 19 of Ms. Pitre's filing, for the record, "Plaintiff's Proposed Order For Discovery", filed on or about May 23, 2018, Ms. Pitre states, "NOT LOCATED". 74. Said record not only exists, but it is also listed on the Court Portal as having been filed on May 24, 2018, and therefore, is "locatable", (Exhibit 33, "Plaintiff's Proposed Order For Discovery"; and Court Portal, dated April 3, 2019, [17^th record listed on p. 39). 75. On p. 3, number 20, for the record, "Order on Defendant's Motion For Protective Order" for the 3^rd time, Ms. Pitre, again sent up the incorrect record. Despite requesting the exact date of said Order, Ms. Pitre filed an unsigned order with a different date, instead of filing the signed order, dated May 24, 2018, (Refer to Exhibits 29, Appellant's Supplemental Clerk Record request, dated March 25, and Exhibit 31, Clerk's Record Filing with the COA, dated March 28, 2019). 76. Not only is said Protective Order, dated May 24, 2018, specifically referenced on the Docket Sheet, but it is also listed as "ORDER PROTECTIVE", on the Court Portal, (Exhibit 33, Court Portal, dated April 3, 2019, p. 24). 77. On Docket Sheet, on p. 11, for the date May 24, 2018, it clearly shows that said Protective Order was signed. Moreover, on the Court Portal, dated September 21, 2018, on the last page, it references ORDER PROTECTIVE. Said Order was signed, but placed on the bottom of the portal as a way to hide it, (Exhibit 26, Docket Sheet, p. 11; and See Exhibit 25, Court Portal, dated September 21, 2018, last page). 78. It is not inconsequential that Ms. Pitre is certifying that certain records are "not located". It is also not inconsequential that she and/or her staff are preparing incorrect records and then sending those incorrect records to the Court of Appeals, when the records she stated were "not located" and when the incorrect records are sent up to the COA are not only locatable, but also, filed. 79. Appellant has not only paid for said records to be sent up to the Court of Appeals, but she is entitled to have a complete record on appeal, and where both the Court Reporter, Ms. Reagor, and Ms. Pitre have intentionally, or unintentionally, failed to comply with Appellant's requests for records acts to adversely affect the record on appeal. 80. Despite the Order, dated February 20, 2019 requiring both the Official Court Reporter for the 68^th Judicial district Court, Antionette Reagor and Dallas District Clerk, Felicia Pitre to filethe records or file written verification that the records do not exist, neither have complied with said Order. 81. As of this date, April 3, 2019, the following clerk's records are still not sent up to the COA and Clerk of the Court of Appeals, Lisa Matz was also notified via correspondence, (See Exhibit 29, Correspondence Letter to Lisa Matz; See Exhibit 27, Supplemental Clerk's Record; Letter to Felicia Pitre-Corrections):

• Order on Motion To Withdraw, dated September 18, 2017
• SIGNED Protective Order, dated May 24, 2018
• Emails from Ms. Pinson to Appellant, dated Mar 14, 2018 thru March 19, 2018
• Email with Notice of Submission, dated August 16, 2018
• Notice of Intent To Strike, dated September 18, 2017
• Notice of Intent To Dismiss, dated March 30, 2018
• Plaintiff's Proposed Order For Discovery, dated on or about May 23, 2018

Five (5) Hearing Transcripts that still have not been filed with the COA:

• September 18, 2017 (not filed with COA, but sent to atty Hootman on 1/30/2019)
• January 22, 2018
• March 30, 2018
• June 4, 2018
• August 13, 2018

82. Appellant has paid in excess of $1700.00 for the requested clerk's records. She is entitled to have them sent up to the COA, and said records (clerk's records and reporter's records) are relevant and material to the appealable issues that will be addressed in Appellant's Brief. To withhold any records, under any excuse, can only result in the tainting of the record on appeal, (Exhibits 28, Payment Receipt, dated as far back as Nov. 5, 2018. NOTE: Other receipts were provided as evidence in previous motions).

1 Attorney Clark had withdrawn as Appellant's attorney in August 2017 when it was revealed to Appellant that not only was he working with opposing counsel, Maurice Klein, against his own client, Appellant, but that attorney, David M. Kleiman, who was the attorney in the "Fox" case (DC-16-05606),was actually preparing legal documents for Robert M. Clark to be used against atty Clark's client - Appellant, in both this underlying case and the "Fox" case. This will be addressed in Appellant's Brief.

WHEREFORE, Appellant prays that this Court grant, in its entirety, Appellant's 2^nd Amended Emergency Motion To Extend Time To File Appellant's Brief from March 31, 2019 to May 10, 2019 and for whatever other relief this Court may deem fair and just. Respectfully Submitted, /s/_________
Brigetta D'Olivio
Appellant Pro Se
3800 Pebblecreek Ct.
Apt. 120
Piano, TX 75023
214-733-7204
beautifulhomesbybrigetta@gmail.com

Image materials not available for display.