Brigetta D'Olivio v. Erhard Hermus

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 8, 2019
Docket05-18-01126-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Brigetta D'Olivio v. Erhard Hermus (Brigetta D'Olivio v. Erhard Hermus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brigetta D'Olivio v. Erhard Hermus, (Tex. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

Order entered May 8, 2019

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-01126-CV

BRIGETTA D’OLIVIO, Appellant

V.

ERHARD HERMUS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-14449

ORDER We REINSTATE this appeal.

By order dated April 15, 2019, the Court ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing and

make written findings as to the accuracy of the clerk’s record. The trial court signed written

findings and filed them with the Court on May 2, 2019.

With respect to specific documents, the trial court found: (1) the Order on Motion to

Withdraw was signed on August 22, 2017 and is properly included in the clerk’s record; (2) the

Protective Order was never signed and an unsigned copy is included in the clerk’s record; (3)

Notice of Intent to Strike Answer signed on September 18, 2017 is included in the clerk’s record;

(4) Notice of Intent to Dismiss dated March 30, 2018 is included in the clerk’s record; and (5) no

document entitled “Plaintiff’s Proposed Order Discovery” is in the clerk’s file. With regard to various email communications with court staff, the trial court found that such communications

are not to be included in the clerk’s record. The trial court also found that no document has been

lost or destroyed that should have been included in the clerk’s record.

We ADOPT the trial court’s findings.

On May 2, 2019, pro se appellant Brigetta D’Olivio filed a motion to respond to the trial

court’s findings. We DENY the motion.

We note appellant Brigetta Homes, LLC d/b/a Beautiful Homes by Brigetta has been

unrepresented since January 15, 2019. Although we have given Brigetta Homes over three

months to retain counsel and cautioned that failure to notify the Court of new counsel’s name

and contact information could result in dismissal of Brigetta Homes as an appellant to this

appeal, Brigetta Homes has not complied. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 7; Kunstoplast of Am., Inc. v.

Formosa Plastics Corp., 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam) (a corporation may appear in

court and be represented only by a licensed attorney). Accordingly, we dismiss Brigetta Homes as

a party to the appeal.

Appellant shall file her brief on the merits no later than June 6, 2019.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kunstoplast of America, Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp.
937 S.W.2d 455 (Texas Supreme Court, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brigetta D'Olivio v. Erhard Hermus, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brigetta-dolivio-v-erhard-hermus-texapp-2019.