Brigetta D'Olivio v. Greg Fox

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided March 11, 2019·No. 05-18-00868-CV·Published

Opinion

FXLED XN court of Appeals No. 05-18-00868-CV MAR 4 2019 Lisa Matz - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C - l e - - r k - - - - ,5th District

IN 1'HE COURT OF APPEALS FOR TH ~ FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Brigetta D'Olivio Defendant-Appellant v.

Greg Fox and Laura Fox, Plaintiffs-Appellees

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Tr. Ct. No. DC-16-05606

APPELLANT'S 3r41 AMENDED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE t\PPELLANT'S AMENDED BRIEF

TO THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS:

The undersigned, Briget a D'Olivio, Appellant, files this Third Amended

Motion To Extend Time Tc File Appellant's Amended Brief and would show the

Court as follows:

1 1. Appellant has not been erved "Appellees' Objection To Motion For

Extension of Time", dated F b. 27, 2019, nor has she been served "Appellees'

Amended Objection To Moti n For Extension of Time", dated March 1, 2019.

2. In both of his Certifica es of Service for each of said the above-referenced

objections, Appellees'attom y, David M. Kleiman, (Kleiman) states, in part,"/

hereby certify that a true an correct copy of this document has been served upon

Appellant Brigetta D 'Olivio via the Court's eFiling service at

3. Said statement in each of aid certificates of service by Kleiman is false.

4. Appellant has never regis ered, nor has she ever given anyone, nor any entity,

the permission to register he as an e-filer on any EFSP, including

Texasonline.gov. Appellan does not have an e-File account with any EFSP.

5. Appellant has never waiv d her right to be served. Simply filing said above-

referenced "Appellees Obje tion to Motion For Extension of Time", dated Feb. 27,

2019 and "Appellees' Ame ded Objection to Motion For Extension of Time",

dated March 1, 2019 does n t constitute service.

6. Where Appellant has nev r registered as an e-filer and where there is no account

of Appellant with any EFS , there can be no such service to Appellant via "e-

File". Nor has Appellant ha been served Appellees' above referenced filings via

email, certified, first class o regular mail.

2 INTRODUCTION

7. That pursuant to Rule 34. of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, there is

no written stipulation filed w th the trial court ( 191 st District Court) wherein only

certain records would be file with the Court of Appeals in the event of an appeal

for the underlying cause nu ber, (DC-16-05606).

8. That, on the contrary, in ppellant's Request For Clerk's Record, dated and

filed July 30, 2018, it specifi ally states, in part, " ... All additional items required

to be included in the Clerk's record according to Rule 34.5 of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure".

9. There are thirty-eight (38 records that have been previously requested to be sent

up to the Court of Appeals, hich have not yet been sent up.

10. There are at least six (6) records that had been previously filed with the Court

Clerk for the 191 st District ourt, which are now missing and/or removed from the

Court Portal without a Cou Order.

11. There are errors and alt rations in the Reporter's Record and the Clerk's

Record for which Appellan has requested corrections and of which Appellant has

requested relative informati n. Appellant has made numerous and various requests

for corrections, clarificatio s and inquiries, without any substantive response.

12. There are missing invoi es, improper invoices and invoices not sent to

Appellant as it relates to th above-referenced thirty-eight (38) records, which

3 correspond to five (5) supple ental clerk's records requests, dating as far back as

December 31, 2018.

13. One (I) of said five (5) s pplemental clerk's records requests was filed under

an unrelated cause number. is is despite the fact that said supplemental clerk's

records request specifically i entified the correct cause number (DC-16-05606).

Another supplement request as not filed on the portal despite having been filed,

and despite having a file sta p. That said supplemental request was filed only

after Appellant asked why it wasn't filed.

14. Although Appellant has communicated directly with District Court Clerk,

Felicia Pitre, regarding the hove-referenced issues so that Appellant can pay, and

so that the supplemental cle k's records can be sent up to the Court of Appeals,

Ms. Pitre has been unrespo sive to Appellant's requests for clarifications,

corrections and invoices th t relate to each outstanding supplemental clerk records

requests.

15. Since Ms. Pitre failed t cooperate with Appellant's requests for clarification,

corrections and correct inv ices, Appellant filed correspondence with the Court

Clerk of the 191 st District ourt on February 25, 2019. Since filing said

correspondence, reference to Appellant's supplemental requests for clerk's

records on the court portal have changed.

16. Appellant's Amended Brief is due on March 7, 2019.

4 17. For all of the above-refer need facts, which are addressed in detail below,

Appellant is requesting an ex ension to file her Amended Brief so that the complete

and correct requested records relevant to the underlying appeal have been sent up

to the Court of Appeals, and o that Appellant will have the opportunity to review

and cite said records prior to 1ling her Amended Brief.

18. That Appellant files this ithin motion not for purposes of delay, but in the

interest of justice.

19. This is Appellant Pro Se' s 2nd request for extension to file her Amended Brief.

Appellant is requesting an e tension to file her Amended Brief on March 28,

2019, provided said pleadin s/records have been sent to the Court of Appeals.

Appellant's extension conte plates avoidance of substantial and irreparable

prejudice and damage to Ap ellant.

APPELLANT'

JULY 30, 2018

20. On July 30, 2018, Appe lant's then attorney Timothy Hootman, (Hootman),

filed a "Request For Clerk' Record" with District Clerk, wherein fifteen (15)

records were requested, (Ex ibit 1, Request For Clerk's Record, dated July 30,

2018).

5 21. According to the docket heet for cause no: DC-16-05606, dated Feb. 22, 2019,

there is a notation that on Au ust 1, 2018, the records for said July 30, 2018 clerk's

records request were being p epared, (Exhibit 2, Docket Sheet, dated Feb. 22,

2019, p. 11).

22. On August 25, 20181, In ex for Volume 1 of 1, dated August 1, 2018 was filed

with the Court of Appeals. I said Index, F elcia Pitre lists the records requested by

Hootman on July 30, 2018. said listing, there is a pleading entitled, "Plaintiffs'

Proposed Findings ofFact nd Conclusions ofLaw", which was not part of

Appellant's Request For Cl rk's Record, dated July 30, 2018, (See Exhibit 1,

Request For Clerk's Record dated July 30, 2018).

23. On August 8, 2018, a" Zerk's Record Payment Notice" (invoice) of$907.00

was filed for said July 30, 2 18 request. Next to the notation on the Docket Sheet

for said date, it states, "Cler 's Record Payment Notice". It further stated,

"Emailed Atty $907.00", (E hibit 2, Docket Sheet, dated Feb. 22, 2019, p. 11).

24. Approximately five (5) eeks later, on September 11, 2018, The Court of

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

Brigetta D'Olivio v. Greg Fox, (Tex. Ct. App. 2019).

Brigetta D'Olivio v. Greg Fox (Brigetta D'Olivio v. Greg Fox) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

§ 3AN
Ohio § 3AN