Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, Jaime Gardea, Synergy Construct LLC, and GC Rentals and Management LLC D/B/A Realty One Group Mendez Burk

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 1, 2024
• Docket: 08-24-00024-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 08-24-00024-CV 08-24-00024-CV EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS EL PASO, TEXAS 10/30/2024 3:34 PM ELIZABETH G. FLORES CLERK NO. 08-24-00024-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS RECEIVED IN FOR THE EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 8th COURT OF APPEALS EL PASO, TEXAS 10/30/2024 3:34:35 PM ELIZABETH G. FLORES ELDON RODRIGUEZ AND MARIA RODRIGUEZ Clerk

V.

HEATHER HARMSTON, JAIME GARDEA, SYNERGY CONSTRUCT LLC, FILED GC IN RENTALS 8th COURT OF APPEALS AND MANAGEMENT LLC D/B/A REALTY ONE GROUP MENDEZ BURK , GABRIEL EL PASO, TEXAS MENDEZ, AND MIGUEL CHACON 11/1/2024 12:51:00 PM ELIZABETH G. FLORES Clerk

APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF TO BRIEF OF APPELLEE GC RENTALS AND MANAGEMENT, LLC D/B/A REALTY ONE GROUP MENDEZ BURK _______________________________________________

Appeal From The 171st District Court Of El Paso County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2021-DCV-2346

Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez APPELLANTS

Michael R. Nevarez, Esq.

The Nevarez Law Firm, PC 7362 Remcon Circle El Paso, Texas 79912 State Bar No. 14933400 Telephone: (915) 225-2255 Facsimiles: (915) 845-3405 E-Mail: MNevarez@LawOfficesMRN.com

Attorney for Appellants

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED RECORD REFERENCES.

o Appellants cite to the materials included in the Clerk’s Record, filed with

this Court by the County Clerk of El Paso County, Texas on April 2, 2024,

using the convention “CR-[Volume No.]:[Page No.]”.

o Appellants cite to the materials included in the Supplemental Clerk’s

Record, filed with this Court by the County Clerk of El Paso County, Texas

on August 23, 2024, using the convention “SCR-[Volume No.]:[Page No.]”.

o Appellants do not cite to a Reporter’s Record, as there is none.

o Appellants cite to the materials included in the Appendix To Appellants’

Principal Brief, filed by Appellants with this Court simultaneously herewith,

using the convention “AAPB-[Volume No.]:[Page No.]”.

o Appellants cite to the materials included in the attached Appendix To

Appellants’ Reply Brief, filed by Appellants with this Court simultaneously

herewith, using the convention “AARB-[Volume No.]:[Page No.]”.

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

RECORD REFERENCES. ........................................................................................2 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................4 I. REPLY...........................................................................................................5 II. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT. .......Error! Bookmark not defined.4 III. PRAYER .....................................................................................................36 CERTIFICATION ...................................................................................................38 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................39 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................40

3 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, under Texas Business & Commerce Code section 17.41 ...............................................................................7 Rules exas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4) ..............................................16 Rule 191.2 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure ............................................ 19, 26 Rule 3.11(I) of the Local Rules of the El Paso County .................................... 19, 26 Rule 38.6(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure ..........................................5 Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i) (3) .........................................................................................39 Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(2)(C) .....................................................................................39 Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4) ............................................17 Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 215.2(5) ..................................................................30 Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 2l5.2(2) ...................................................................30 TRAP 9.4..................................................................................................................39 TRCP 194.2(b)(7) ....................................................................................................28 TRCP 199.2(b)(1) ....................................................................................................28 TRCP Rule 192.3(f) .................................................................................................28

4 TO THE HONORABLE EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellants Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez (hereinafter jointly

referred to as “RODRIGUEZ”) file this Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply”), in

accordance with Rule 38.6(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, in

response to “Brief of Appellee GC Rentals and Management, LLC d/b/a Realty

One Group Mendez Burk” (“Response”) filed by Appellee GC RENTALS AND

MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a REALTY ONE GROUP MENDEZ BURK (“GC

RENTALS”), and in support thereof would respectfully show onto the Court as

follows:

I. REPLY.

A. The “Real” Reason For The Filing Of The Motion For Sanctions.

1. In actuality, the following three (3) Motions that were filed on

November 10, 2023 at 1:37 PM (MST), are at issue herein:

a. “Defendants, GC Rentals And Management LLC d/b/a Realty One Group Mendez Burk, Heather Harmston, Jaime Gardea, Synergy Construct LLC’s Joint Motion For Sanctions Against Plaintiffs” (“Motion For Sanctions”);

b. “Motion To Show Cause (“Show Cause”);

c. “Motion For Emergency Hearing.” (“Motion For Emergency Hearing”) (AARB-1:020-072).

2. To begin to ascertain the real and actual reason for the filing of the

Motion For Sanctions and the Motion For Emergency Hearing, the Court should

5 understand the true identity, involvement and interrelationship of:

a. GC RENTALS;

b. GABRIEL MENDEZ, Owner and manager of GC RENTALS;

c. Former Defendant Megan Tara Harris (“HARRIS”);

d. Counsel James A. Martinez (“MARTINEZ”)’;

e. Counsel Reid P. Rendon (“RENDON”); and

f. Counsel, Hala A. Abdel-Jaber (“ABDEL-JABER”).

3. The Court should also understand the timing of the filing of the

Motion For Sanctions and the Motion For Emergency Hearing. We tediously but

necessarily proceed in detailed chronological order, to expose to the Court the true

reason for the filing of the Motion For Sanctions.

4. The Original Petition And Request For Disclosure. On July 7,

2021, RODRIGUEZ filed their “Original Petition And Request For Disclosure”

(“Petition”), against Appellees HEATHER HARMSTON (“HARMSTON”),

JAIME GARDEA (“GARDEA”), and SYNERGY CONSTRUCT LLC

(“SYNERGY”). (CR-1:24-40).

5. Attached to the Petition were the following exhibits:

a. Exhibit A - The TREC Contract at issue; b. Exhibit B – The Property Inspection Report;

c. Exhibit C - The May 7, 2020 Demand Letter, therein seeking payment to satisfy damages in the amount of $304,612.00, broken down as follows:

6 i. $275,344.00, including closing costs, as reimbursement to my Clients for the entire CASH purchase price of the Premises;

ii. $11,391.00, as reimbursement for the cost of RODRIGUEZ’ move to Texas; iii. $12,726.00, as reimbursement for the cost of the structural repairs and improvements incurred by RODRIGUEZ, and

iv. $5,151.00, as reimbursement for the cost RODRIGUEZ moving back to California.

v. The Demand Letter also duly noted Defendants that if payment of the foregoing was not made to RODRIGUEZ, within sixty (60) days from the date of Defendants’ receipt of the Demand Letter, the lawsuit filed against Defendants would be amended to include an additional count for Defendants’ violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, under Texas Business & Commerce Code section 17.41 et. seq, therein seeking treble damages under the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (“DTPA”). d. Exhibit D – The Executive Summary Report by Jaime Gallo, PE, CCM.

(CR-1:41-70).

6. On June 23, 2022, RODRIGUEZ served “Plaintiffs’ Rule 194.2 Initial

Disclosures” on GARDEA.

7. On same date, June 23, 2022, Appellants filed “Plaintiffs’ Certificate

of Written Discovery” certifying that “Plaintiffs’ Rule 194.2 Initial Disclosures”

were served on HARMSTON, GARDEA, and SYNERGY, which included

7 relevant and material documents (Rodriguez-000001- Rodriguez-000145). (Total

145 pages of exhibits) (CR-2:4290-4493).

8. The Petition did not name GC RENTALS or HARRIS, as

RODRIGUEZ at the time had insufficient information about same. (CR-1:24-40).1

9. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Petition. On May 13, 2022,

RODRIGUEZ filed their “"Plaintiffs’ First Amended Petition" (“FAP”), therein

adding Appellees GC RENTALS and HARRIS, and attaching the Petition Exhibits

A-D. (CR-1:71-119).

10. HARRIS. HARRIS filed “Defendant Megan Tara Harris’ Original

Answer" (“ANSWER”), on July 1, 2022, by and through Counsel MARTINEZ and

RENDON, of the law firm Mounce, Green, Myers, Safi, Paxson & Galatzan

(“MOUNCE”), purportedly as "Attorneys for Defendant Megan Tara Harris."

(CR-1:127-129).

11. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 194.2 of the Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure (“TRCP”), MARTINEZ and RENDON were required to file the “Initial

Disclosures" on behalf of GC RENTALS, by August 1, 2023, and did so, in timely

manner, except for the “indemnity and insuring agreements described in Rule

192.3(f)”, which MARTINEZ and RENDON Response, on behalf of GC

1 Appellees MENDEZ and CHACON were only added later, as Defendants, in “Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Petition”, due to the failure and refusal of Appellees GC RENTALS, HARMSTON, GARDEA, and SYNERGY to properly disclose (a) the involvement of CHACON in the defective repair and construction of the PREMISES, and (b) the approval by MENDEZ of the sale contrary to the requirements of his INSURER’s POLICY. 8 RENTALS, was: “Defendant will supplement.”2 (CR-1:4455-4493).

12. MARTINEZ and ABDEL-JABER represented themselves as

“Attorneys for Defendant Megan Tara Harris”, in filing “Defendant Megan Tara

Harris’ Motion For Summary Judgment.” (CR-1:403-412).

13. Conflicted RENDON purportedly represented HARRIS, and GC

RENTALS, at the “Zoom Video Deposition Of Megan Tara Harris”, conducted on

January 12, 2023. (CR-2:4524-4693).

14. Apparently, HARRIS had been the victim of a fraud perpetuated by

co-Defendant Heather Harmston (“HARMSTON”). (CR-2:4524-4693).

15. Significantly, for purposes herein, the undersigned, Michael R.

Nevarez (“NEVAREZ”), first became aware of HARMSTON’s fraud, when

HARRIS directly contacted NEVAREZ, on August 16, 2022, via telephone, and

volunteered that:

a. HARMSTON had forged and falsified the signature of HARRIS, on the TREC Contract at issue herein, and b. HARRIS was not the “Licensed Supervisor” of HARMSTON, as HARMSTON had fraudulently represented on the TREC Contract.

(CR-2:4682).

2 TRCP Rule 192.3(f) states: Indemnity and insuring agreements. Except as otherwise provided by law, a party may obtain discovery of the existence and contents of any indemnity or insurance agreement under which any person may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment rendered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment. Information concerning the indemnity or insurance agreement is not by reason of disclosure admissible in evidence at trial. 9 16. Perhaps more significantly, in said telephone call on August 16, 2022,

HARRIS further explained to NEVAREZ that HARRIS had never authorized

MARTINEZ to represent her in this matter. MARTINEZ had thus filed numerous

pleadings purportedly on behalf of HARRIS, without the approval of HARRIS.

(CR-2:4524-4693).

17. On September 8, 2022, HARRIS again contacted the undersigned

“seeking to resolve her case”, and explained to the undersigned that MARTINEZ

was not returning her calls. (CR-2:4685).

18. On January 12, 2023, the undersigned took the deposition of

HARRIS, wherein Reid P. Rendon (“RENDON”) appeared purportedly on behalf

HARRIS, and GC RENTALS. (CR-2:4526-4528, Transcript Page 28, Lines 21-25

and Transcript Page 29, Lines 1-2).

19. At the HARRIS deposition, HARRIS confirmed that (a) she and

GABRIEL MENDEZ discussed payment by HARRIS of half the price of the

deductible for the insurance company covering errors and omissions in subject

matter, and (b) she did not approve the filing of the ANSWER by MARTINEZ,

RENDON and MOUNCE. (CR-2:4553-4454).

20. Therefore, for purposes of the MOTION FOR SANCTIONS herein,

the Court should note that MARTINEZ and RENDON filed the ANSWER on

10 behalf of HARRIS, without the approval of HARRIS.3

21. GC RENTALS. Appellee GC RENTALS is represented herein by

MARTINEZ, ABDEL-JABER and MOUNCE.

22. On August 4, 2023, RODRIGUEZ served “Plaintiffs’ First

Supplementary TRCP Rule 194 Required Disclosures” to Defendants Heather

Harmston, Jaime Gardea, Synergy Construct LLC, and GC Rentals and

Management LLC d/b/a Realty One Group Mendez Burk, with “Exhibit A”

attached, and provided a Dropbox link with all documents listed on Exhibit A via

email. (Total 408 pages). (CR-1:1737-1748) (CR-1:1751-1753) (CR-2:2168-2170)

(SCR-1:503-517).

23. On August 4, 2023, RODRIGUEZ served “Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez

and Maria Rodriguez’s First Supplementary Responses and Answers To Defendant

GC Rentals and Management LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for

Production To Plaintiffs”, with “Exhibit A” attached, and provided a Dropbox link

with all documents listed on Exhibit A via email. (Total 408 pages). (CR-1:1687-

1736) (CR-2:2168-2170) (SCR-1:499-501).

24. GABRIEL MENDEZ. As noted in Appellant’s Principal Brief

(“Brief”), Page 13, Footnote 1, Appellee GC RENTALS is represented herein by

3 Any discussion of the possible violations of the cannons of ethics and/or the rules and regulations regarding the conduct of counsel is beyond the scope of this Appeal, and will therefore not be addressed at this time in this Reply. 11 Hala A. Abdel-Jaber (“ABDEL-JABER”), who also represents GABRIEL

MENDEZ, the sole owner and manager of Broker GC RENTALS, which

employed HEATHER HARMSTON as the Broker’s Agent. (AARB-1:158-166).

25. As the Licensed Broker in the sale to RODRIGUEZ of the real

property at issue herein, located at 9328 McFall Drive, El Paso, Texas ("Premises")

GABRIEL MENDEZ is thus legally responsible herein for his breach of his legal,

contractual and fiduciary duties and obligations owed to RODRIGUEZ, failure to

comply with his legal, contractual and fiduciary duties by commission, omission,

or willful omission, to ensure that subject sale or PREMISES was in accordance

with (i) the rules and laws of the State of Texas pertaining to the sale of real

property, and (ii) Broker GC RENTALS's internal quality control and compliance

policy, procedures and requirements. (AARB-1: 158-166).

26. However, the involvement of GABRIEL MENDEZ and his failure to

properly exercise his duties under the rules and laws of the State of Texas was only

first discovered during the deposition of Defendants HARMSTON and MENDEZ,

on or about November 13-14, 2023, which was more than two (2) years and four

(4) months AFTER the “Plaintiffs’ Original Petition And Request For Disclosure”

was filed by RODRIGUEZ. (AARB-1: 158-166).

27. As such, despite the “Plaintiffs’ Original Petition And Request For

Disclosure”, ABDEL-JABER failed to comply with her duty to duly disclose the

existence and involvement of GABRIEL MENDEZ and his failure to properly 12 exercise his duties under the rules and laws of the State of Texas.

28. On July 5, 2022, GC RENTALS filed its “Defendant GC Rentals and

Management LLC d/b/a Realty One Group Mendez Burk’s Original Answer.”

(CR-1:130-132).

29. On April 5, 2023, RODRIGUEZ were served with “Defendant GC

Rentals And Management LLC’s First Set Of Interrogatories And Requests For

Production To Plaintiffs” (“Discovery Requests”). Significantly, the only

interrogatories or requests for production in GC RENTALS’ Discovery Requests

pertinent herein are requests for production Nos. 33 and 36, which request the

following:

33. Please produce records that reflect all repairs you performed on the Property from January 1, 2018 to the present.

36. If you had to have any of the work any Defendant performed repaired or corrected, please produce records that reflect the nature and cost of the repair or corrective work.

(CR-1:1481-1482).

30. Importantly, GC RENTALS’ Discovery Requests directly at issue in

the ORDER appealed herein did not at all request any records related to (a) the

claimed $11,391.00, as reimbursement for the cost of RODRIGUEZ’ move from

California to Texas to reside in the structurally defective PREMISES, or (b) the

claimed $5,151.00, as reimbursement for the cost of RODRIGUEZ moving back to

California, from the structurally defective PREMISES.

13 31. As such, GC RENTALS’ Discovery Requests subject of the appealed

ORDER only requested records related to the claimed $12,726.00, as

reimbursement for the cost of the structural repairs and improvements incurred by

RODRIGUEZ.

32. On May 5, 2023, RODRIGUEZ served “Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez

and Maria Rodriguez’s Responses and Answers To Defendant GC Rentals and

Management LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests For Production To

Plaintiffs” on GC RENTALS. (“First Discovery Responses”). (CR-1:1483-1507).

33. On same date, May 5, 2023, RODRIGUEZ filed “Plaintiffs’

Certificate of Written Discovery” certifying the “Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and

Maria Rodriguez’s Responses and Answers To Defendant GC Rentals and

Management LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests For Production To

Plaintiffs” was served on GC RENTALS. (CR-1:1508-1510).

34. On May 18, 2023, Appellee GC RENTALS filed a Motion to Compel

Plaintiffs’ Responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for

Production (“Motion to Compel”). (CR-1:302-330).

35. On June 19, 2023, the oral deposition of Appellant Eldon Rodriguez

(“ELDON”) commenced, and ELDON was examined regarding RODRIGUEZ’

repair and moving expenses. (CR-1:1540-1643, Transcript page 29, lines 13-25;

Transcript page 30, lines 1-6; Transcript page 32, lines 11-19; and Transcript page

125, lines 1-25). 14 36. On June 20, 2023, the oral deposition of ELDON continued, including

the continuing examination of ELDON regarding RODRIGUEZ’ repair and

moving expenses. (CR-1:1644-1683, Transcript page 7, lines 13-22; Transcript

page 10, lines 22-25; Transcript page 11, lines 1-25; Transcript page 12, lines 1-10;

Transcript page 15, lines 13-25; Transcript page 16, lines 1-25; Transcript page 17,

lines 1-25; Transcript page 18, lines 1-25; Transcript page 19, lines 1-25;

Transcript page 21, lines 20-25; Transcript page 22, lines 1-25; Transcript page 24,

lines 20-25; and Transcript page 25, lines 1-12).

37. On or about July 21, 2023, the Trial Court heard Appellee GC

RENTALS’ MOTION TO COMPEL, wherein the undersigned counsel for

RODRIGUEZ voluntarily agreed to amend their responses and produce all non-

privileged documents responsive to Appellee GC RENTALS’ Requests for

Production on or before August 4, 2023.

38. On July 26, 2023, the Trial Court signed an “Order On Defendant’s

Motion To Compel Discovery Against Plaintiffs” (“ORDER ON GC RENTALS’

MOTION TO COMPEL”) ruling in accordance with the above-mentioned

voluntary agreement of undersigned counsel for RODRIGUEZ. (CR-1:726-728).

39. On August 4, 2023, RODRIGUEZ timely complied with subject

ORDER ON GC RENTALS’ MOTION TO COMPEL, by providing GC

RENTALS with “Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez’s First

Supplementary Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management 15 LLC’s First Set Interrogatories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs”

(“Second Discovery Responses”), on Appellee GC RENTAL. Significantly, in

response to GC RENTALS’ Discovery Requests, RODRIGUEZ responded to

Requests For Production (“RFP”) Nos. 33 and 36 pertinent herein, concerning the

claimed $12,726.00 for repair costs, as follows:

33. Please produce records that reflect all repairs you performed on the Property from January 1, 2018 to the present.

Response:

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs’ possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

As a Supplementary Response, and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiffs respond as follows: No change to the foregoing response, except to add:

1. In accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4), Plaintiffs will produce for inspection and copying all documents responsive to this request on August 4, 2023, at 9 AM MST, at 7362 Remcon Circle, El Paso, Texas 79912. 2. None available at this time. 3. See deposition of Eldon Rodriguez.

(emphasis added)(CR-1:1723, Supplementary Response Page 37). 16 36. If you had to have any of the work any Defendant performed repaired or corrected, please produce records that reflect the nature and cost of the repair or corrective work.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs’ possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

As a Supplementary Response, and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiffs respond as follows: No change to the foregoing response, except to add:

4. In accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4), Plaintiffs will produce for inspection and copying all documents responsive to this request on August 4, 2023, at 9 AM MST, at 7362 Remcon Circle, El Paso, Texas 79912. 5. None available at this time. 6. See deposition of Eldon Rodriguez.

(emphasis added)(CR-1:1724-1725, Supplementary Response Pages 38-39).

40. On August 4, 2023, RODRIGUEZ filed “Plaintiffs’ Certificate of

Written Discovery” certifying that “Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria

Rodriguez’s First Supplementary Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals

17 and Management LLC’s First Set Interrogatories and Requests For Production To

Plaintiffs” was served on GC RENTALS. (CR-1:1734-1736).

41. On same date, August 4, 2023, RODRIGUEZ served “Plaintiffs’ First

Supplementary TRCP Rule 194 Required Disclosures” on HARMSTON,

GARDEA, SYNERGY and GC RENTALS, and filed “Plaintiffs’ Certificate of

Written Discovery.” (CR-1:1737-1753).

42. On August 4, 2023, GC RENTALS’ counsel appeared at the

undersigned’s office in order to inspect and collect documents responsive to GC

RENTALS’ request for production. The documents responsive to said production

thus were made available to Counsel for GC RENTALS for inspection and

copying, in accordance with RODRIGUEZ’ Second Discovery Responses. At the

time, GC RENTALS’ counsel was informed the documents could not be taken

from undersigned’s office for copying, as GC RENTALS’ counsel had requested,

but was advised that copies could be made by the building receptionist at a cost.

GC RENTALS’ counsel did not agree with paying for copies, so undersigned’s

office offered to provide the documents via a Dropbox link, to which GC

RENTALS’ Counsel agreed. Counsel for GARDEA and SYNERGY also appeared

and requested copies of the complete file made available to Counsel for GC

RENTALS for inspection and copying, and also agreed to receive documents via

the Dropbox link.

43. On August 4, 2023, the undersigned counsel produced to Counsel for 18 GC RENTALS, HARMSTON, GARDEA and SYNERGY, via Dropbox, all

documents responsive to GC RENTALS’ requests for production. (CR-1:2168-

2170).

44. On August 10, 2023, at 10:30 AM, undersigned counsel received a

letter from Ms. Hala A. Abdel-Jaber (“ABDEL-JABER”), counsel for GC

RENTALS, regarding the purported failure of RODRIGUEZ to fully respond to

“Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez’s First Supplementary Responses

and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management LLC’s First Set

Interrogatories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs.” (CR-1:1749-1750).

45. Significantly, said ABDEL-JABER letter did not at all raise or address

the purported failure of RODRIGUEZ to (a) fully respond to RFP Nos. 33 and 36

pertinent herein, or (b) produce copies of documents reflecting the moving

expenses claimed by RODRIGUEZ at issue herein. (CR-1:1749-1750).4

46. On August 10, 2023, GC RENTALS served on Appellants

RODRIGUEZ “Amended Notice Of Deposition”, therein scheduling ELDON’s

deposition for October 17, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. (CR-1:2092-2093).

47. Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Petition. On August 11, 2023,

4 Therefore, there was no meet and confer even attempted by ABDEL-JABER, regarding (a) subject responses to RFP Nos. 33 and 36, and/or (b) production of documents related to subject moving expenses, in violation of Rule 191.2 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, entitled “Conference”, and Rule 3.11(I) of the Local Rules of the El Paso County, entitled "Hearings On Pre-Trial Motions, Exceptions, And Pleas— Pretrial Procedures (Civil Cases).”

19 RODRIGUEZ filed their “Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Petition” (“SAP”), therein

(a) adding an Action for Texas Deceptive Trade Practices (“DTPA”), (b) claiming

DTPA treble damages in the total amount of $1,094,388.48 (which is three (3)

times the $364,796.16 amount of damages due Plaintiffs), and (c) thereby raising

the total amount of the claim herein (“TOTAL CLAIM”) to $1,459,184.64, not

including interest, attorney’s fees and costs, or other damages. (CR-1:741-795).

48. Attached to the SAP as Exhibit C was RODRIGUEZ’ May 7, 2020

Demand Letter, therein seeking inter alia damages in the following amounts:

a. $275,344.00, including closing costs, as reimbursement to my Clients for the entire purchase price of the Premises;

b. $11,391.00, as reimbursement for the cost of RODRIGUEZ’ move to Texas;

c. $12,726.00, as reimbursement for the cost of the structural repairs and improvements incurred by RODRIGUEZ, and

d. $5,151.00, as reimbursement for the cost RODRIGUEZ moving back to California.

(CR-1:788-792).

49. Therefore, contrary to GC RENTALS’ representations, the SAP

provides the necessary documentation for the TOTAL CLAIM amount of

$1,459,184.64. Moreover, the "Settlement Statement" produced by NEVAREZ,

and obtained via Subpoena duces tecum from WestStar Title, LLC, provides all the

written evidence of the $273,366.10 "Cash from Borrower" RODRIGUEZ, as the

CASH payment for the purchase price of the Premises. (See AARB-1:212). 20 50. On November 8, 2023, the undersigned met with ELDON, in

preparation for ELDON‘s deposition scheduled for November 9, 2023.5 At the

meeting, the question of RODRIGUEZ’ repair and moving expenses arose again,

to which ELDON informed the undersigned that an email previously had been sent

to the undersigned by an unknown employee of ELDON’s former company,

“American Windows.”

51. Consequently, that same day, November 8, 2023, the undersigned

proceeded to search the contents of his Microsoft Outlook client email folder for

RODRIGUEZ, since the undersigned’s Outlook Rules automatically forwards, to

the undersigned’s Outlook folder created especially for ELDON, all of the emails

sent from ELDON’s personal email addresses: eldondr@att.net, or

EldonDR9@gmail.com.

52. However, at first, the undersigned was unable to locate subject email

from “American Windows”, as subject email was NOT in the undersigned’s

Outlook folder for ELDON. Instead, after running a full search of all of the

undersigned’s Outlook folders, the undersigned discovered that subject email was

in the undersigned’s Outlook “SPAM” folder, because subject email had an

unrecognizable email address of “Eldon Rodriguez

”, instead of ELDON’s

5 Upon information and belief, GC RENTALS did not serve on Plaintiffs a second amended notice of deposition scheduling ELDON’s deposition for November 9, 2023.

21 recognized previous personal email addresses: eldondr@att.net, or

EldonDR9@gmail.com. (CR-1:2040-2053).6

53. On November 9, 2023, ELDON’s deposition resumed for a third day.

During said deposition, as had occurred during ELDON’s previous depositions of

June 19 and 20, 2023, Defendants’ counsel examined ELDON as to the existence

of written evidence of the repair damages and moving expenses alleged by

RODRIGUEZ. ELDON was persistent during said examination that he had

incurred the alleged repairs and moving expenses. (CR-1:1947-2112, Transcript

page 5, lines 12-22; Transcript page 9, lines 23-25; Transcript page 11, lines 20-25;

Transcript page 12, lines 1-14; Transcript page 14, lines 23-25; Transcript page 15,

lines 1-11; Transcript page 24, lines 13-25; Transcript page 25, lines 1-20;

Transcript page 26, lines 17-25; Transcript page 33, lines 21-25; Transcript page

53, lines 10-25; Transcript page 94, lines 19-25; Transcript page 95, lines 1-25;

Transcript page 96, lines 1-25; and Transcript page 143, lines 13-25).

54. On same date of November 9, 2023, after the conclusion of Appellees’

counsel examination of ELDON, the undersigned counsel commenced his

examination of ELDON, and entered “Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1”, Bates-Stamped pages

6 Subject GC RENTALS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, at page 2, twice admits that the undersigned’s reasoning for not producing said Exhibit was an “oversight.” (AAPB-1:691, Transcript Page 197, Lines 10-19). As now confirmed by the November 9, 2023, deposition transcript of ELDON, the failure to produce subject email was thus not intentional or for purposes of concealment or disregard of the Court’s ORDER ON GC RENTALS’ MOTION TO COMPEL, but rather was an accidental “oversight”, due to the unintended forwarding of said unrecognizable email address for ELDON, to the undersigned’s Outlook SPAM folder.

22 “001-0014” into evidence, because said Exhibit No. 1 contained errors and

omissions, and the undersigned sought to first clarify those deficiencies during

Appellees’ counsel’s presence at the deposition, before having Appellees’ counsel’s

examine ELDON re same. (CR-1:1996-2002, Transcript Pages 196-218) (CR-

1:2040).

55. During the undersigned counsel’s examination of ELDON, on

November 9, 2023, ELDON testified at length regarding the alleged repairs and

moving expenses. (CR-1:1996-1998, Transcript page 197, lines 10-25; Transcript

page 198, lines 1-25; Transcript page 199, lines 1-18; and Transcript page 204,

lines 3-19).

56. On same date, November 9, 2023, undersigned counsel received an

email from counsel for GARDEA and SYNERGY, requesting RODRIGUEZ

produce all emails between undersigned counsel and RODRIGUEZ, which had

been sent by RODRIGUEZ’ children.

57. Perhaps more importantly, the next day, November 10, 2023, after

completion of the undersigned counsel’s line of questioning the previous day,

November 9, 2023, Counsel for Appellees GC RENTALS, HARMSTON,

GARDEA, and SYNERGY, each had ample opportunity to thoroughly examine

ELDON under oath as to the contents of Exhibit No. 1. (CR-1:2113-2147,

Transcript page 5, lines 22-25; Transcript page 6, lines 1-10; Transcript page 17,

lines 2-25; Transcript page 18, lines 1-25; Transcript page 19, lines 1-25; 23 Transcript page 25, lines 21-25; Transcript page 26, lines 1-25; Transcript page 27,

lines 1-25; Transcript page 28, lines 1-25; Transcript page 29, lines 1-25;

Transcript page 30, lines 1-25; Transcript page 31, lines 1-25; Transcript page 32,

lines 1-25; Transcript page 33, lines 1-2; Transcript page 34, lines 19-25;

Transcript page 35, line 25; Transcript page 36, lines 4-7; Transcript page 38, lines

24-25; Transcript page 39, lines 1-9; and Transcript page 44, lines 11-19).

58. Hence, on November 10, 2023, Counsel for Appellees GC RENTALS,

HARMSTON, GARDEA, and SYNERGY thoroughly examined ELDON to their

full satisfaction, and thereby waived any grounds for objection and sanctions, as to

the following:

a. The records requested by RFP Nos. 33 and 36 at issue herein, and depicted on subject Exhibit No. 1, therein reflecting all repairs performed, repaired or corrected by RODRIGUEZ, in the total amount of $12,726.00; and

b. Moving expenses in the amounts of $11,391.38, $5,151.50 and $1,000.00, as depicted on subject Exhibit No. 1, for a total amount of $17,542.88 for moving expenses, but which were NOT AT ALL subject of GC RENTALS' RFP Nos. 33 and 36, or any other discovery request.

(CR-1:2113-2147).

59. On same date, November 10, 2023, Maria Rodriguez’ (“MARIA”)

deposition was taken, with MARIA also deposed as to RODRIGUEZ’ moving

expenses. (CR-1:2120, Transcript page 29, lines 8-24).

60. GC RENTALS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS. On November 10,

24 2023 at 1:37 PM (MST), Appellees GC RENTALS, HARMSTON, GARDEA, and

SYNERGY filed their “Defendants, GC Rentals and Management LLC d/b/a

Realty One Group Mendez Burk, Heather Harmston, Jaime Gardea, Synergy

Construct LLC’s, Joint Motion For Sanctions Against Plaintiffs, Motion To Show

Cause and Motion For Emergency Hearing” (“GC RENTALS’ MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS”). (CR-1:2113-2147).

61. As of the date November 10, 2023, RODRIGUEZ had already

produced a total of (408) pages compiled of (120) documents, which included the

documents (Rodriguez-000001 - Rodriguez-000145) provided in “Plaintiffs’ Rule

194.2 Initial Disclosures.”

62. However, the GC RENTALS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS was not

accepted by the El Paso County District Clerk until November 13, 2023, and was

file-stamped with a time of 12:00 AM. (AARB-1: 073-074).

63. Significantly, Appellees HARMSTON, GARDEA, and SYNERGY

joined GC RENTALS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, even though HARMSTON,

GARDEA and SYNERGY had no standing, regarding (a) GC RENTALS’ Second

Discovery Responses, and (b) GC RENTALS’ MOTION TO COMPEL.

64. On November 10, 2023 at 8:33 PM (MST), RODRIGUEZ filed their

“Plaintiffs’ Third Amended List of Expert Witnesses and Designation of Testifying

Experts.” (AARB-1:075-155).

65. However, RODRIGUEZ’ Third Amended List of Expert Witnesses 25 and Designation of Testifying Experts was not accepted by the El Paso County

District Clerk until November 13, 2023 at 10:04 AM (MST). (AARB-1:073-074).

66. GC RENTALS’ Motion For Emergency Hearing. On November

13, 2023, ABDEL-JABER, counsel for Appellee GC RENTALS and the

INSURER, sent an email to Court Coordinator Loretta Mata (“MATA”), requesting

the emergency hearing be scheduled for the GC RENTALS’ MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS, and thereby completely failing and disregarding her obligation to

meet and confer with the undersigned counsel. (CR-1:1412-1413).7

67. Also on November 13, 2023, GC RENTALS filed its “Objections To

Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Notice of Deposition of Corporate Representative of GC

Rentals and Management, LLC d/b/a Realty One Group Mendez Burk.” (AARB-

1:158-166).

68. On same date, November 13, 2023, the deposition of MENDEZ, as

the Corporate Representative, was held. (CR-3:4810-5140).

69. On November 14, 2023, Ms. Terry Silva (“SILVA”), on behalf of

ABDEL-JABER, sent an email to MATA and all counsel confirming that the GC

RENTALS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, was set for Emergency Hearing, on

November 28, 2023, at 2:00 PM, without any indication or suggestion as to what

7 ABDEL-JABER was then once again in blatant violation of (a) Rule 191.2 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, entitled “Conference”, and (b) Rule 3.11(I) of the Local Rules of the El Paso County, entitled "Hearings On Pre-Trial Motions, Exceptions, And Pleas— Pretrial Procedures (Civil Cases).”

26 the “Emergency” was about. Again, neither SILVA nor ABDEL-JABER even

attempted a meet and confer with the undersigned counsel, prior to requesting an

Emergency Hearing.

70. On same date, November 14, 2023, the 171st Judicial District Court

Judge Bonnie Rangel (“JUDGE RANGEL”), filed an “Order of Court Setting”

scheduling GC RENTALS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS for Emergency Hearing

on November 28, 2023, at 1:00 PM., without any regard for the possible

scheduling conflict of the undersigned.

71. Also on November 14, 2023, the deposition of MENDEZ resumed.

(CR-3:5141-5203).

72. On November 15, 2023, undersigned counsel’s paralegal Denise D.

Macias (“MACIAS”) sent an email to Mr. Justiss Rasberry ordering the transcripts

of the deposition of ELDON and MARIA that were taken on November 9th and

November 10th, requesting confirmation that preparation of the transcripts would

take approximately two to three weeks. No confirmation or response was ever

received from Mr. Rasberry, the court reporter for GC RENTALS. (CR-1:1421-

1425).

73. On November 16, 2023, MACIAS sent an email to Appellees’ counsel

as a meet and confer to ascertain their opposition to RODRIGUEZ' filing of a

Motion for Continuance of the hearing on GC RENTALS’ MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS, since the undersigned counsel already had scheduled hearings in the 27 41st District Court of El Paso County Texas, in Javier Robles vs. Admiral’s

Experience, Inc., et al., Cause number 2021DCV2598, and therefore said hearing

in Robles took precedence herein, pursuant to the Local Rules of El Paso County.

(CR-1:1426-1428).

74. On November 22, 2023, Appellee GC RENTALS served on

Appellants “Defendant GC Rentals and Management, LLC d/b/a Realty One

Group Mendez Burk’s Second Supplemental Initial Disclosures”, therein

producing for the very first time the “Real Estate Errors And Omissions Liability

Policy (“POLICY”) of the “INSURER”, Twin City Fire Insurance Company, or

The Hartford, for the “NAMED INSURED”, GC Rentals and Management, LLC

dba Realty ONE Group Mendez Burk, which should have been produced to the

undersigned counsel for RODRIGUEZ, more than three (3) months earlier, on

August 1, 2023, per TRCP Rule 192.3(f).8 (CR-3:5512-5613).

75. On November 28, 2023, RODRIGUEZ filed their partially opposed

“Motion For Continuance of Hearing on GC RENTALS’ MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS (“Motion For Continuance”). (CR-1:1399-1430).

8 Incredibly, at the prior deposition of Gabriel Mendez (“MENDEZ”), ABDEL-JABER, the conflicted counsel for both Appellee GC RENTALS and the INSURER, improperly instructed MENDEZ, owner of GC RENTALS, to NOT answer any questions relating to the INSURER, or the POLICY, and refused to produce either the POLICY, or any other relevant documents concerning MENDEZ and the INSURER, in blatant violation of (a) the Third Amended Notice of Deposition issued to GC RENTALS, pursuant to TRCP 199.2(b)(1), therein requesting the production of documents by GC RENTALS regarding same, and (b) ABDEL-JABER’s obligation to describe/produce said insurance documents, under the “Required Disclosures” provisions of TRCP 194.2(b)(7). 28 76. On same date, November 28, 2023, RODRIGUEZ filed “Plaintiffs’

Response To Defendants GC Rentals and Management, LLC d/b/a Realty One

Group Mendez Burk, Heather Harmston, Jaime Gardea, Synergy Construct LLC’s

Motion For Sanctions Against Plaintiffs, Motion To Show Cause and Motion For

Emergency Hearing” (“RESPONSE”). (CR-1:1431-1790).

77. On same date, November 28, 2023, at 10:44 AM, MACIAS provided

the Court with a copy via email of said Motion For Continuance.

78. On same date, November 28, 2023, at 2:17 PM, Blake Downey,

counsel for Appellees GARDEA and SYNERGY, informed the undersigned, via

email, that the Trial Court had already conducted the Emergency Hearing on the

undersigned’s Motion for Continuance of GC RENTALS’ MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS, and had denied same outside the presence of the undersigned

counsel, and was starting the hearing on GC RENTALS’ MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS.9 (CR-1:2367-2369).

79. On same date, November 28, 2023, after concluding the hearing on

the Robles case, the undersigned joined the hearing on GC RENTALS’ MOTION

FOR SANCTIONS that was already in progress via Zoom, in ex parte manner.10

9 The undersigned also received a telephone call from ABDEL-JABER confirming that the Court had conducted the hearing on the Motion for Continuance of Motion For Sanctions, had denied same, and had started the Emergency Hearing on GC RENTALS’ Motion For Sanctions. 10 The undersigned, by and through MACIAS, subsequently requested a copy of the transcript of the aforementioned Motion For Continuance and said ex parte Emergency Hearing, but was 29 80. In plain terms, by the timer the undersigned joined the “Emergency

Hearing”, on GC RENTALS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS this case had already

been decided via Zoom, in improper ex parte manner, by JUDGE RANGEL.11

81. On December 4, 2023, the Trial Court signed and filed the “Order on

Defendants’ Joint Motion For Sanctions, Motion To Show Cause and Motion For

Emergency Hearing” (“ORDER”), against Appellants ELDON RODRIGUEZ and

MARIA RODRIGUEZ, therein:

a. Granting "Defendants' Joint Motion for Sanctions, Motion to Show Cause and Motion for Emergency Hearing",

b. Ordering Plaintiffs to pay expenses related to Defendants expenses of discovery, expenses for depositions, and taxable court costs pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 2l5.2(2); and

c. Ordering that all Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants are dismissed with prejudice to refiling pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 215.2(5).

(AARB-1:003-004).

82. On January 3, 2024, RODRIGUEZ timely filed their “Plaintiffs’

Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform,

advised that said proceedings were was not recorded, and therefore apparently no recording of said hearings exists. 11 RODRIGUEZ prays the Court take Judicial Notice, pursuant to Rule 201, of the Texas Rules of Evidence, of the Opinion, Issued November 3, 2023, of the Special Court Of Review, commissioned by the Texas State Commission, sanctioning JUDGE RANGEL for Judicial Misconduct, sanctioned for Judicial Misconduct, during civil proceeding, involving a discovery dispute, and a Zoom hearing to resolve the dispute, coincidentally, as was the said “Emergency Hearing” at issue herein. (See AARB-1: 006-019). 30 Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside and Motion For New Trial” (“MOTION

TO RECONSIDER”). (AARB-1:010-038).

83. On February 16, 2024, RODRIGUEZ timely filed their “Notice of

Appeal.” (AARB-1:044-048).

84. On April 2, 2024, the District Clerk’s Office filed the Clerk’s Record

(3 Volumes). (AARB-1:049).

85. On May 1, 2024, RODRIGUEZ filed their “Appellants’ First Motion

For Extension Of Time To File Appellants’ Principal Brief”, requesting a thirty (30)

day extension.

86. On same date, May 1, 2024, this Court entered an Order granting

Appellants’ First Motion For Extension Of Time To File Appellants’ Principal

Brief, extending the Principal Brief deadline to Saturday, June 1, 2024.

87. On Monday, June 3, 2024, RODRIGUEZ filed their “Appellants’

Principal Brief.”

88. On July 2, 2024, GARDEA and SYNERGY filed their “Jaime Gardea

and Synergy Construct LLC’s First Motion For Extension Of Time To File Reply

Brief.”

89. On July 5, 2024, this Court entered an Order granting GARDEA and

SYNERGY’s First Motion For Extension Of Time To File Appellees’ Brief,

extending the Brief deadline to August 17, 2024.

90. On July 11, 2024, GC RENTALS filed its “Amended Motion For 31 Extension Of Time To File Brief Of Appellees.”

91. On same date, July 11, 2024, RODRIGUEZ filed their “Appellants’

Objection To Motion For Extension Of Time To File Reply Brief OF Appellees

Filed By GC Rentals and Management, LLC.” (AARB-1:050-148).

92. On July 12, 2024, this Court entered an Order granting GC

RENTALS’ Amended Motion For Extension Of Time To File Brief Of Appellees’,

extending the Brief deadline to August 2, 2024.

93. On July 31, 2024, GC RENTALS filed its “Appellee GC Rentals and

Management, LLC d/b/a Realty One Group Mendez Burk’s Second Motion For

Extension Of Time To File Responsive Brief.”

94. On August 2, 2024, this Court entered an Order granting GC

RENTALS’ Second Motion For Extension Of Time To File Responsive Brief,

extending the Brief deadline to August 9, 2024.

95. On August 9, 2024, GC RENTALS filed its “Brief of Appellee GC

Rentals and Management, LLC d/b/a Realty One Group Mendez.”

96. On August 16, 2024, GARDEA and SYNERGY filed their “Appellees

Jaime Gardea and Synergy Construct LLC’s Second Motion To Extend Deadline to

File Brief.”

97. On August 21, 2024, this Court entered an Order granting GARDEA

and SYNERGY’s Second Motion For Extension Of Time To File Appellees’ Brief,

extending the Brief deadline to August 31, 2024.” 32 98. On August 23, 2024, the District Clerk’s Office filed a Supplemental

Clerk’s Record (1 Volume).

99. On August 29, 2024, RODRIGUEZ filed their “Appellants’ First

Motion For Extension Of Time To File Appellants’ Reply Brief To GC Rentals and

Management, LLC d/b/a Realty One Group Mendez Burk.”

100. On same date, August 29, 2024, GARDEA and SYNERGY filed their

“Jaime Gardea and Synergy Construct LLC’s Appellees’ Brief.”

101. On August 30, 2024, this Court entered a “Corrected Order” granting

Appellants’ First Motion For Extension Of Time To File Appellants’ Reply Brief

To GC Rentals and Management, LLC d/b/a Realty One Group Mendez Burk,

extending the Brief deadline to September 28, 2024.

102. On September 17, 2024, Appellants filed their “Appellants’ First

Motion For Extension Of Time To File Appellants’ Reply Brief To Jaime Gardea

and Synergy Construct LLC.”

103. On September 19, 2024, this Court entered an Order granting

Appellants’ First Motion For Extension Of Time To File Appellants’ Reply Brief

To GARDEA and SYNERGY, extending the Brief deadline to October 18, 2024.

104. On September 26, 2024, RODRIGUEZ filed their “Appellants’

Second Motion For Extension Of Time To File Appellants’ Reply Brief To GC

Rentals and Management, LLC d/b/a Realty One Group Mendez Burk.”

105. On September 30, 2024, this Court entered an Order granting 33 Appellants’ Second Motion For Extension Of Time To File Appellants’ Reply Brief

To GC RENTALS, extending the Brief deadline to October 28, 2024.

106. On October 15, 2024, RODRIGUEZ filed their “Appellants’ Second

Motion For Extension Of Time To File Appellants’ Reply Brief To Jaime Gardea

107. On October 16, 2024, this Court entered an Order granting Appellants’

Second Motion For Extension Of Time To File Appellants’ Reply Brief To

GARDEA and SYNERGY, extending the Brief deadline to November 17, 2024.

II. APPELLEE’S SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT.

108. GC RENTALS argues that the “offensive conduct by Nevarez was

directly related to the reason for the Joint Motion for Sanctions. Other sanctions

were imposed against Nevarez for his prior discovery abuse, thereby justifying the

Order.” (Response, at 10).

109. However, GC RENTALS cites to no specific “offensive conduct by

Nevarez”, other than complaining about the discovery by NEVAREZ of subject

fourteen (14) page “Exhibit No. 1” in NEVAREZ’ Outlook “SPAM” folder, due to

“oversight” of NEVAREZ, of not checking his Outlook “SPAM” folder, for emails

from “American Windows”, until the day before ELDON’s deposition. (See

Exhibit R, (AARB-1:__-__).

110. Moreover, GC RENTALS can cite to no specific sanctions imposed

against Nevarez for his alleged prior discovery abuse, because there were NO 34 SANCTIONS imposed on NEVAREZ. (See (AARB-1:__-__, for the "Order On

Defendant’s Motion To Compel Discovery Against Plaintiffs").

111. In fact, the Court NEVER even ruled on "Defendant GC Rentals And

Management, LLC d/b/a Realty One Group Mendez Burk's Motion For Costs."

(CR-[Volume No.]:[Page No.]”).

112. GC RENTALS argues that “Appellants did not produce a single

receipt or evidence in support of their alleged damages” to GC RENTALS, Gardea

or Synergy. (Response, at 2).

113. Similarly, GC RENTALS argues that “Nevarez, contrary to the trial

court’s Order, did not withdraw objections and did not produce a single receipt or

other evidence in support of Appellant’s alleged damages and claimed none were

available. CR:1687-1733; CR:3822-3840.” (Response, at 5-6).

114. To the contrary, in full and timely occurrence with the Order On

Defendant’s Motion To Compel Discovery Against Plaintiffs", on August 4, 2023,

Appellants served “Plaintiffs’ First Supplementary TRCP Rule 194 Required

Disclosures” to Defendants Heather Harmston, Jaime Gardea, Synergy Construct

LLC, and GC Rentals and Management LLC d/b/a Realty One Group Mendez

Burk, with Exhibit A attached, and provided a Dropbox link with all documents

listed on Exhibit A via email. (Total 408 pages). (CR-1:1737-1748) (CR-1:1751-

35 1753) (CR-2:2168-2170) (SCR-1:503-517).12

115. In short, GC RENTALS’ representations to this Court are not only

wrong, but are contrary to the record herein.

116. GC RENTALS has completely failed to carry its burden of proof, and

therefore this Court should (a) reverse the ORDER of the Trial Court, (b) order the

transfer of this case to another trial court, for consideration of the merits, and (c)

award Appellants all reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this appeal.

III. PRAYER.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellants ELDON

RODRIGUEZ and MARIA RODRIGUEZ ask the Court to (a) reverse the ORDER

of the Trial Court, (b) order the transfer of this case to another trial court, for

consideration of the merits, and (c) award Appellants all reasonable attorney’s fees

and costs incurred in this appeal.

October 28, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

THE NEVAREZ LAW FIRM, PC 7362 Remcon Circle El Paso, Texas 79912 Telephone: (915) 225-2255 Facsimiles: (915) 845-3405 Email: MNevarez@LawOfficesMRN.com

12 Unfortunately, JUDGE RANGEL did not appear in person at said hearing on the motion to compel, and apparently no record was kept of subject hearing. However, the record of emails between the parties herein reflects that the undersigned actually volunteered and arranged for the inspection and copying to occur on August 4, 2023, before subject hearing, though JUDGE RANGEL later ruled that said inspection and copying could occur by Close of Business, on August 4, 2023 36 /s/ Michael R. Nevarez MICHAEL R. NEVAREZ State of Texas Bar No. 14933400

37 CERTIFICATION I certify that I have reviewed this Appellants’ Reply Brief and conclude that

every factual statement is supported by competent evidence included in the record.

/s/ Michael R. Nevarez MICHAEL NEVAREZ

38 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i) (3), I hereby certify that this ELDON

RODRIGUEZ and MARIA RODRIGUEZ’ Reply Brief is a computer-generated

document using Microsoft Word, and contains 6,875 words (excluding the

Caption, Identity Of Parties And Counsel, Table Of Contents, Index Of

Authorities, Statement Of The Case, Statement Of Jurisdiction, Statement

Regarding Oral Argument, Record References, Statement Of Issues Presented,

Statement Of Procedural History, Signature, Proof Of Service, Certification,

Certificate Of Compliance, and Appendix), which is less than the 7,500 word

maximum, in accordance with Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(2)(C).

39 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing

APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF TO BRIEF OF APPELLEE GC RENTALS

AND MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a REALTY ONE GROUP MENDEZ

BURK, with all supporting attachments, exhibits, and affidavits referenced therein,

if any, was served by e-Filing via an Electronic Filing Service Provider, to the

following parties in interest, on this October 28, 2024:

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE HEATHER HARMSTON: MARIO A. GONZALEZ 1522 Montana Avenue, Suite 100 El Paso, Texas 79902 Telephone: (915) 543-9802 Email: mario@gonzalezlawfirm.com

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES JAIME GARDEA, SYNERGY CONSTRUCT LLC: M. BLAKE DOWNEY SCOTTHULSE PC One San Jacinto Plaza 201 E. Main Drive, Suite 1100 El Paso, Texas 79901 Telephone: (915) 533-2493 Emails: bdow@scotthulse.com;

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE GC RENTALS: JAMES A. MARTINEZ HALA A. ABDEL-JABER MOUNCE, GREEN, MYERS, SAFI, PAXSON & GALATZAN P.O. Box 1977 El Paso, Texas 79999-1977 Telephone: (915) 532-2000 Facsimile: (915) 541-1597 Emails: martinezja@jmeplaw.com; Abdel-jaber@mgmsg.com 40 /s/ Michael R. Nevarez MICHAEL NEVAREZ

41 NO. 08-24-00024-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ELDON RODRIGUEZ AND MARIA RODRIGUEZ

HEATHER HARMSTON, JAIME GARDEA, SYNERGY CONSTRUCT LLC, GC RENTALS AND MANAGEMENT LLC D/B/A REALTY ONE GROUP MENDEZ BURK, GABRIEL MENDEZ, AND MIGUEL CHACON

APPENDIX TO APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF TO BRIEF OF APPELLEE GC RENTALS AND MANAGEMENT, LLC D/B/A REALTY ONE GROUP MENDEZ BURK _______________________________________________

Appeal From The 171st District Court Of El Paso County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2021-DCV-2346

Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez, Appellants

Michael R. Nevarez, Esq. The Nevarez Law Firm, PC 7362 Remcon Circle El Paso, Texas 79912 State Bar No. 14933400 Telephone: (915) 225-2255 Facsimiles: (915) 845-3405 E-Mail: MNevarez@LawOfficesMRN.com

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED

AARB-1:001 LIST OF DOCUMENTS

Appendix Page: 1. Order of Defendants’ Joint Motion For Sanctions…………………………..4

2. Special Court of Review Opinion Issued Nov. 3, 2023……………………..6

3. Defendants, GC Rentals and Management LLC d/b/a Realty One Group Mendez Burk, Heather Harmston, Jaime Gardea, Synergy Construct LLC’s, Joint Motion For Sanctions Against Plaintiffs, Motion To Show Cause and Motion For Emergency Hearing and Exhibits A and B …………………...20

4. E-file Notification of Service – Defendants’ Joint Motion For Sanctions Against Plaintiffs…………………………………………………………...73

5. Plaintiffs’ Third Amended List of Expert Witnesses and Designation of Testifying Experts and Exhibits (A-J)……………………………………...75 a. Exhibit A – Building Inspection Report…………………………….83 b. Exhibit B – John Estrada’s Resume…………………………………90 c. Exhibit C – Executive Report by Jaime Gallo………………………91 d. Exhibit D – Jaime Gallo CV Resume……………………………….94 e. Exhibit E – Tom Given Resume…………………………………….96 f. Exhibit F – Expert Report of Michael Bray…………………………97 g. Exhibit G – Michael Bray Resume……...…………………………..99 h. Exhibit H – G-3ngineering Report…………………………………101 i. Exhibit I – New Proposed Residence………………...…………….131 j. Exhibit J – Truss Engineering Drawings…………………………..138

6. E-file Filing Accepted – Plaintiffs’ Third Amended List of Experts …….156

AARB-1:002 7. Objections To Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Notice of Deposition of Corporate Representative of GC Rentals and Management, LLC d/b/a Realty One Group Mendez Burk ……………………………………………………...158

8. Date Calculator – 30 Day Deadline To File Motion To Reconsider.……..167

9. Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside and Motion For New Trial……………………………………………………………..172

10. Date Calculator – 75 Day Deadline To File Notice of Appeal.…………..201

11. Notice of Appeal………………………………….………………………206

12. Letter from Court of Appeals, Eighth District of Texas, Regarding Clerk’s Record Filed………………………………………………………………211

13. US Dept of Housing – Settlement Statement.……….……… .…………..212

AARB-1:003 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS

17151 JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ELDON RODRIGUEZ and MARIA § RODRIGUEZ, § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § Case No. 2021DCV2346 § HEA HIER HARMSTON, JAIME § GARDEA, SYNERGY CONSTRUCT § LLC, GC RE TALS A D § MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a REALTY § ONE GROUP MENDEZ BURK, and § MEGAN TARA HARRIS, § § Defendants. §

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE AND MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING

On this day came to be considered Defendants GC Rentals and Management LLC d/b/a

Realty One Group Mendez Burk, Jaime Gardea, Synergy Construct, and Heather Harmston 's, Joint

Motion for Sanctions, Motion to Show Cause and Motion for Emergency Hearing (the "Motion").

Having considered said Motion and the arguments of counsel, this Court hereby orders that said

Defendants' Motion is GRANTED.

IT TS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Joint Motion for Sanctions, Motion to

Show Cause and Motion for Emergency Hearing is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiffs are ordered to pay expenses related to Defendants

expenses of discovery, expenses for depositions, and taxable court costs pursuant to Texas Rule of

Civil Procedure 215.2(2).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants are dismissed

with prejudice to refi le pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 2 15.2(5). This order is final and

1939.407/HABD/ l 756612 Page 1 of2

AARB-1:004 appealable. • / l>~ . SIGNED this _J_ day oifa, 2023.

~ Honorable Bonnie Rangel ........._,. 'W

171 51 Judicial District

APPROVALS:

Michael Nevarez Attorney for Plaintiffs

Isl Hala A. Abdel-Jaber James A. Martinez Hala A. Abdel-Jaber Attorneys for Defendant GC Rentals and Management, LLC d/b/a Realty One Group Mendez Burk

/s/ Blake Downey (with permission) Blake Downey Attorney for Jaime Gardea and Synergy Construct, LLC

Ma~z Attorney for Heather Harmston

1939.407/HABD/17566 12 Page 2 of 2

AARB-1:005 Opinion Issued November 3, 2023

DOCKET NO. SCR 22-0004

SPECIAL COURT OF REVIEW

IN RE INQUIRY CONCERNING HONORABLE BONNIE RANGEL CJC NO. 21-0483, 21-0802, 21-1294 & 21-1609

OPINION

Before QUINN, CJ Presiding, and BENAVIDES JJ and GOLEMON, CJ.

Truly, a picture is worth one thousand words, if not more. Here, we have more

than pictures; rather, we have videos of conduct ascribed by the Texas State Commission

on Judicial Conduct as unacceptable. While words may tend to describe that conduct,

they fall short of grasping its essence. Thus, we use both in completing the duty assigned

us by the Texas Supreme Court. That body ordered this panel to conduct a de novo

review of various acts performed by the Honorable Bonnie Rangel, 171st District Court.

Those acts were found sanctionable by the Commission, which issued both a public

warning and public admonishment. We issue a public warning coupled with an order for

further education and mentoring.

AARB-1:006 Background

The “public admonition” arose from a single instance of Judge Rangel filing a

written response to a motion seeking her recusal from a particular case. Underlying the

determination was the rule of procedure stating that a jurist subject to such a motion

“should not file a response” to it. TEX. R. CIV. PROC. 18a(c)(2). According to the

Commission, the mere fact that Judge Rangel filed a response meant she failed to

comport and maintain competence in the law, thereby violating “Canons 2A and 3B(2) of

the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.”

The “public warning” arose from the judge’s interaction with attorneys and court

personnel during four separate hearings held within the two-year period of 2020 to 2021.

Each hearing occurred electronically and remains within the morass of videos accessible

to the public via YouTube. And, collectively, her conduct led the Commission to hold she

“should be publicly warned for failing to [be] patient, dignified and courteous toward the

Assistant District Attorney, attorneys and court personnel, all of whom she deals in an

official capacity, during court hearings, in violation of Canon 3B(4) of the Texas Code of

Judicial Conduct.”

Each of the foregoing determinations are subject to a de novo review. In re Bell,

894 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex. Spec. Ct. Rev. 1995); In re Keller, 357 S.W.3d 413, 425-26

(Tex. Spec. Ct. Rev. 2010). Thus, in July 2023, we convened a hearing to garner

pertinent evidence. Both Judge Rangel and the Commission appeared. The following

emanates from that hearing.

AARB-1:007 Responding to Recusal

We begin with the matter of responding to the recusal motion and reiterate that the

Commission found Judge Rangel violated Canons 2A and 3B(2) in doing so. We

conclude otherwise.

Canon 2A states that: a “judge shall comply with the law . . ..” Per Canon 3B(2),

a jurist also “shall maintain professional competence in“ the law. Of the myriad laws we

“shall comply with” and “should maintain professional competence in” is that establishing

the procedures to be followed when a litigant attempts to recuse a trial judge. Those

procedures appear in Rule 18a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. And, the subpart

in play is that stating: “[t]he judge whose recusal or disqualification is sought should not

file a response to the motion.” TEX. R. CIV. PROC. 18a(c)(2). No one disputes that Judge

Rangel filed a response. She admitted as much and explained she “was not aware of

that” provision. So too did she state she: 1) had not been in “very many contentious or

contested motion[s] to recuse,” 2) failed to comply with the law when filing the response,

and 3) failed to maintain professional competence in the law regarding motions to recuse

and filing a response. Does that warrant sanction in this instance . . . we say no.

The violation of judicial canons may be the source of discipline when “willful.” TEX.

CONST. art. V, §1-a(6)(A). Willful conduct, for purposes of that article, involves the

improper or wrongful use of the power of office by a judge acting intentionally, or with

gross indifference. In re Ginsberg, 630 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex. Spec. Ct. Rev. 2018); In re

Barr, 13 S.W.3d 525, 534 (Tex. S. Ct. Rev. Trib. 1998); In re Thoma, 873 S.W.2d 477,

489 (Tex. S. Ct. Rev. Trib. 1994). This contemplates more than an error in judgment or

lack of diligence. In re Barr, 13 S.W.3d at 534; In re Thoma, 873 S.W.2d at 489. Rather,

AARB-1:008 it must evince moral turpitude, dishonesty, corruption, misuse of office, bad faith or the

like. Id. And, the Commission must prove the jurist had either: 1) the conscious objective

of causing the result or of acting in the manner defined in the pertinent rule of conduct or

2) exercised indifference that is flagrant, shameful and beyond all measure and allowance

when performing the act. In re Ginsberg, 630 S.W.3d at 7; In re Barr, 13 S.W.3d at 534-

35.

At best, the evidence of record revealed a lack of knowledge on Judge Rangel’s

part about the applicability of Rule 18a and its allegedly absolute prohibitions. It depicts

her failure to exercise diligence in discovering the law by which she had to abide when

confronted with a motion to recuse. We find nothing in it evincing moral turpitude,

dishonesty, corruption, misuse of office, or bad faith. See In re Ginsberg, 630 S.W.3d at

8 (defining bad faith as dishonesty of belief or purpose). Nor do we find within it a pattern

of practice of ignoring applicable law or refusal to educate herself about the law.

Judges make mistakes when complying with, applying, and interpreting laws.

Indeed, the obviousness of this is implicit within our tiered judicial system. Recognizing

that, those writing the Constitution required violations of Canons 2A and 3B(2) to be willful.

Judge Rangel’s were not. Her mistake likened to simply an error in judgment or lack of

diligence.

Interaction at Hearings

Next, we address Judge Rangel’s comportment with Canon 3B(4). It provides that

a “judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers

and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and should require similar

AARB-1:009 conduct of lawyers, and of staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction

and control.” TEX. CODE JUD. CONDUCT, Canon 3B(4). The Commission charged Judge

Rangel with violating this canon while presiding over four hearings. And, as said earlier,

the Commission determined that collectively, the violation warranted a public warning.

We concur after conducting our own de novo review of the evidence.

To reiterate, the conduct at issue was brought to the Commission’s attention

through three complaints. One, CJC No. 21-0483, encompassed two incidents. Each of

those incidents involved extended rebukes, one directed at an assistant district attorney

and the El Paso County district attorney’s office.1 The other entailed rebukes directed at

two attorneys in a civil proceeding and stemmed from those attorneys characterizing an

opponent’s discovery requests as “nonsensical.”2 The second complaint, CJC No. 21-

0802, concerned reference to a defendant suffering the effects of “karma,”3 while the third,

CJC No. 21-1609, deals with reference to a court interpreter’s attitude and a curt directive

to the interpreter about having a “good life.”4 We address each in turn.

Regarding the assistant district attorney and office of the El Paso District Attorney

incident, Judge Rangel spoke in what can be described as an elevated, sometimes shrill,

tone.5 With such a tone in her voice, interspersed with hopping in her seat and waving

her arms, she 1) criticized how “you guys operate,” 2) opined that the district attorney’s

office does not “operate with fairness and decency and justice,” 3) characterized

arguments proffered by the assistant district attorney as “outrageous” and “stupid,” 4)

1 https://www.youtube.com/live/I1Yc5otb-kU?si=QhkNXHbFYy3i7sZB 2 https://www.youtube.com/live/_hvzgS9L2bc?si=a-0thJDmdZhVERDs 3 https://www.youtube.com/live/XFn0FpotMSI?si=G8xFzeOszjnXpvAM 4 https://www.youtube.com/live/esYQxeYT7ws?si=JUKjdGeSsVmUOYRP 5 https://www.youtube.com/live/I1Yc5otb-kU?si=QhkNXHbFYy3i7sZB beginning at 1:23:30 in passim.

AARB-1:010 voiced disgust through her statement, “ I just can’t take that . . . can’t take it,” 5) criticized

“how you guys think and how you dispense justice . . . it’s outrageous,” 6) espoused “this

isn’t the first time this outrageousness has been brought to my attention . . . this is case,

after case, after case on big cases . . . you guys just gotta get a conviction,” and 7)

accused the office of repeatedly “play[ing] games” and “being obstructive in all the big big

cases.” Given that this was a hearing conducted over Zoom during the period of COVID

closures, the assistant district attorney sat alone and attempted to communicate with

office colleagues through text messages. Judge Rangel then accused the lawyer of

inattentiveness and extended her commentary. Again, this discourse transpired over a

period of minutes as opposed to seconds. Furthermore, it evinced a general bias against

the manner in which another elected official (the district attorney) operated his office.

Indeed, she later admitted to 1) having a “contentious relationship” with the district

attorney, 2) “everyone” knowing of that contentious relationship, 3) supporting a candidate

running against him, 4) uttering “disparaging comments” about his office while conducting

the Zoom hearing, and 5) having issues, in general, with the particular assistant district

attorney sitting before her. The foregoing similarly demonstrates bias and prejudice by

Judge Rangel, which also violates Canon 3B(5). TEX. CODE JUD. CONDUCT, Canon 3B(5).

As for the civil proceeding, it involved a discovery dispute and a Zoom hearing to

resolve them. The three attorneys participating therein were female, two of whom worked

for the same law firm. Through much of the proceeding, Judge Rangel spoke calmly and

inquisitively. Yet, that changed when one attorney (movant’s counsel) described how the

other two first “trashed” her by apparently characterizing her discovery requests as

AARB-1:011 “vague” and “nonsensical.”6 In a stern voice and a roll of her eyes, Judge Rangel began

with: “you know, that would kind of piss me off.” This was followed, in an alternatingly

calm and yelling tone, with her description of the “flavor” of the situation. That “flavor”

consisted of: 1) “disrespect” as opposed to “kindness” and 2) two more experienced

attorneys “pick[ing]” on a less seasoned one.7 She then can be heard both

interchangeably emphasizing and yelling that: 1) “nonsensical is mean,” 2) “you guys are

disrespectful and you guys are mean,” 3) “why would you say ‘nonsensical’, that’s

disrespectful,” 4) “have you ever said nonsensical in other responses,” 5) “well you’re

disrespectful to a lot of people and that’s rude,” 6) “let me tell you . . . in this world we do

not need any more of that, we have plenty of that,” 7) “so be professional,” 8) “so when

you say nonsensical you mean disrespect,” 9) “and let me tell you . . . disrespect is

determined by the receiver,” 10) “stop shaking your head because you’re disrespecting

me right now,” and 11) you may not mean it “but you do it to everybody,” 12) “you can’t

deal with these people,” 13) “these people do not accept responsibility . . . do not accept

. . . that ‘nonsensical’ was a little bit disrespectful,” and 14) “it’s a shame you all have to

be female, that’s the shameful part.”8 These comments were also punctured with body

language like swinging of the arms, slapping of hands, waving of the head, and leaning

towards the camera. Though more criticisms were made over the ensuing minutes

despite apologies from counsel, this captures the tenor of her actions. It further captures

6 https://www.youtube.com/live/_hvzgS9L2bc?si=a-0thJDmdZhVERDs beginning at 17:30 in passim. 7 The record indicates Rangel simply did not know that the lawyer she assumed was inexperienced had been licensed four years while one whom she castigated was newly licensed. 8 Judge Rangel informed the two attorneys that words like “vague,” “overbroad,” and “don’t make sense” were acceptable terms to her. Interestingly, the latter phase is the definition of “nonsensical.” MERRIAM- WEBSTER ONLINE DICTIONARY, https://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonsense (last visited October 6, 2023). Furthermore, an electronic query of the term on a popular legal research site disclosed over 800 court opinions wherein it was used by the jurists authoring them.

AARB-1:012 their rather ironic nature, given the admonishment to act with respect and kindness.

Judge Rangel would later concede that her conduct could have been better.

Next are the circumstances in CJC No. 21-0802. The hearing concerned a motion

to dismiss charges against a defendant. Apparently, he had been accused of indecency

with and sexual assault of a child. The defendant having since suffered severe medical

issues implicating his groin area, Judge Rangel quipped: “sometimes karma’s a bitch.”

She then followed that, in a raised voice and a wave of her arm with: “and let me tell you,

if he did it, karmically he’s suffering right now cause God hit him right in the place where

. . . it all started . . . really . . ..” At that point, counsel observed that the defendant was

also a double amputee. Thereafter, Judge Rangel quipped: “right, he can’t feel anything

down there . . . that’s karmic . . . if he did it, there it is, God’s taken of it, there’s justice,

God’s taken care of it, if he did it. ‘9 The above again demonstrates bias and prejudice by

Judge Rangel, which violates Canon 3B(5). TEX. CODE JUD. CONDUCT, Canon 3B(5).

Asked at the hearing by this Special Court of Review whether her comments

illustrated a bias or prejudice against the as-yet convicted defendant, she responded “no.”

Instead, her intent was to “find some sense of justice for the complaining witnesses” and

“give a little peace to the complaining witnesses.” Intending to bring a sense of justice for

and peace to the complaining witnesses by describing defendant’s medical condition as

karmic and God’s justice certainly suggests a predisposition regarding the defendant’s

guilt. So too does it evince ridicule of his medical condition.

9 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=XFn0FpotMSI&feature=youtu.be beginning 33:45 in passim.

AARB-1:013 The substance of the third and final complaint, i.e., CJC No. 21-1609, occurred at

the end of a guilty plea proceeding. Judge Rangel inquired of the court interpreter if she

could deactivate the interpreting program. An inaudible response came from the

interpreter, which response apparently indicated she could not. Nevertheless, Judge

Rangel calmly informed the interpreter to: 1) not be offended, 2) she was not trying to

“piss [the interpreter] off,” and 3) another interpreter had successfully ended the program

in a prior hearing. More was then said by the judge. It included, in an alternatingly raised

and then stern voice: 1) “I’m not making this up and I’m not trying to piss you off;” 2) “you

pissed me off with your attitude;” 3) “goodbye and have a good life . . . figure it out, please;”

and 4) “that’s what you should have said from the very beginning instead of pissing me

off . . ..”10

Judicial Conduct

Media, movies, and television influence the public’s perception of their elected

judges. Whether it be the wizened, yet stern, Judge Chamberlain Haller, or the witty,

sharped-tongued Judge Judy, their performance on screen may easily be perceived as

examples of how we should act. Yet, we are not them or Judge Dredd or even Judge

Elihu Smalls. We are not entertainers, but rather Texas jurists obligated to abide by actual

rules as opposed to a story or show script. Those rules include the Code of Judicial

Conduct. Furthermore, Article V, Section 1-a(6)(A) of the Texas Constitution states for

what a judge may be disciplined and mandates that a jurist shall not engage in the willful

violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, or in willful or persistent conduct that is clearly

10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esYQxeYT7ws&list=PPSV 1:51:45 in passim.

AARB-1:014 inconsistent with the proper performance of her duties or casts public discredit upon the

judiciary or on the administration of justice. TEX. CONST. ART. V, § 1-a(6)(A); see also TEX.

GOV’T CODE ANN. § 33.001(b)(2); TEX. CODE JUD. CONDUCT, Canon 2(A), reprinted in TEX.

GOV’T CODE ANN., tit. 2, subtit. G, app. B.

Again, Cannon 3B(4) of that Code requires us to “be patient, dignified and

courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in

an official capacity . . ..” TEX. CODE JUD. CONDUCT, Canon 3B(4); In re Barr, 13 S.W.3d at

538-39. Heeding this mandate does not obligate us to be robots, shorn of individual

personality and character. In re Barr, 13 S.W.3d at 538-39. Indeed, it is that individuality

in spirit, experience, and background that refreshes our ranks and reinvigorates our

jurisprudence. Yet, there are limits. For instance, a judge may not threaten to crawl

“across the bench and slap[] the crap out of” an attorney without repercussion. In re Barr,

13 S.W.3d at 539-40 (finding such violative of the Canon). And should they be impatient,

vindictive, undignified, and sarcastic, they risk discipline. Id. at 539 (noting that jurists

have been disciplined for such conduct). Similarly, insulting, degrading, vile, and sexist

language has little place within the courtroom. Id. at 540.

Rangel’s Conduct

The conduct captured in the videos and described above falls below that

acceptable under 3B(4). Extended shouting at counsel for using a word commonly found

in legal writings coupled with a tone reasonable jurists would find disrespectful, if not

contemptable, if directed at him or her, falls outside the penumbra of patient and dignified.

The same could be true of repeatedly uttering, in anger, a word (“piss”) found

contemptable if said by lawyers. E.g., In re Hesse, No. 07-16-00437-CR, 2017 Tex. App.

AARB-1:015 LEXIS 7230, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug.1, 2017, orig. proc.) (mem. op.) (wherein a

trial court held counsel in contempt for repeating the word “piss”). Indeed, jurists should

practice what they preach. Levelling extended and global accusations of misconduct in

a loud, angered voice against counsel and the office for which she worked, and ridiculing

a party’s severe medical condition also evince conduct violative of 3B(4). Moreover,

nothing presented us suggested that Judge Rangel’s utterances and accusations were

involuntary. Rather, the evidence showed them to be intentionally said. Thus, the

violations of Canon 3(B)4 were willful.

Nonetheless, not every violation need be sanctioned. A brief quip, an instance of

raised voice to garner attention and stress seriousness, an exasperated shake of head

or rolling of eyes, a stern look or even a harsh word may not warrant sanction. We are

human, after all, not that robot spoke of in Barr. Our emotions may well show themselves

in unique situations irrespective of the effort used to suppress them. It is for this reason

that the measure of sanction, if any, is influenced by such things as the seriousness of

the transgression, its frequency, its nature, its impact on the perception of the judiciary,

the physical situs of its occurrence, its occurrence in private life or while performing duties

of an elected office, the judge’s tenure, the judge’s effort to recognize and correct

misbehaviors, repetition of the misconduct, and other relevant indicia. See In re Sharp,

480 S.W.3d 829, 839-40 (Tex. Spec. Ct. Rev. 2013) (listing various indicia).

Judge Rangel structured her defense, in part, upon the theme of “24 years . . . four

complaints.” In other words, she asks us to infer that because only four complaints had

been filed during her 24-year tenure on the bench, she necessarily erred only four times.

To withstand analysis, the inference necessitates another component. That component

AARB-1:016 would consist of proof that everyone who witnesses improper conduct necessarily

complains. We know that is not true. Indeed, Judge Rangel admitted to witnessing what

she labelled misconduct by attorneys without formally complaining of it. If she remained

silent, why would not others? In our field, it is not unheard of for attorneys to withhold

complaint due to fear of retaliation, which fear one witness actually mentioned during our

de novo review. Many also accept ill conduct as part and parcel of practicing our trade.

We may not like it but we let it go. Acknowledging that truth leads us to reject the inference

that she committed only four instances of misconduct in her 24 years since only four

complained. On the other hand, the evidence does establish that within the years 2020

and 2021, she engaged in at least four instances of impropriety.

More importantly, there is a reason these four instances occurred in 2020 and

2021. It relates to the presence of COVID and the ensuing need to conduct public

hearings via ZOOM and YouTube. Therefore, referencing the prior 20+/- years and lack

of complaint is somewhat misleading and irrelevant given the non-utilization of Zoom and

universal viewing through YouTube before then.

Additionally, the evidence illustrates that the conduct in question was not private,

but quite public; it occurred during official court proceedings. Anyone in the world with

access to the internet could and can view it, as did many. Moreover, the attorneys and

court personnel subject to her utterances were comparable to a captive audience. Being

participants in a hearing, they were not necessarily free to leave without experiencing

additional reaction. Simply put, a judge controls the proceeding, which legal counsel

generally know. Engaging in impermissible diatribe while exercising that control is a

misuse of that office.

AARB-1:017 Judge Rangel realizing the improper nature of her action was commendable, as

was her effort to alter her behavior through educational instruction. Yet, her realization

and efforts at modification were not contemporaneous with or soon after her activity, but

rather she acted after the Commission did, that is, after it sanctioned her and she sought

review of that decision.

We also find troubling her effort to justify her conduct by suggesting that segments

of the YouTube viewing public found it acceptable. As said earlier, we are not

entertainers; we do not play to the public crowd. Though the public is free to grade us

through the ballot box, we grade our department through compliance with canons

regulating judicial conduct. Again, Article V, Section 1-a(6)(A) of the Texas Constitution

states what a judge may be disciplined for and provides in relevant part that the jurist shall

not engage in a willful violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, or in willful or persistent

conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of her duties or casts

public discredit upon the judiciary or on the administration of justice. TEX. CONST. ART. V,

§ 1-a(6)(A); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 33.001(b)(2); TEX. CODE JUD. CONDUCT,

Canon 2(A), reprinted in TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN., tit. 2, subtit. G, app. B.

Our consideration of the incidents in total, leads us to find both a misuse of office

in which Judge Bonnie Rangel intentionally engaged and one warranting the sanction of

a public warning. We further direct Judge Rangel to complete 1) 2 hours of education on

courtroom decorum and judicial deportment as offered by the Texas Center for the

Judiciary, and 2) 2 hours of mentoring with the Honorable Judge Mark Atkinson, executive

AARB-1:018 director of the Texas Center for the Judiciary. Such must begin within one month and

completed within six months from the date of this opinion.11

Judge Rangel is so Ordered. We further order that no party or their representative

shall remove any video or like media mentioned in this opinion from Youtube or the

internet for one year from the date of this opinion.

Per Curium

11 Regarding Judge Rangel’s pending motion to dismiss, we deny it. Her first ground focused on purported non-compliance with statutory time periods. Those time periods were effective September 1, 2022 and applied only to complaints filed after that date. The complaints against Judge Rangel were filed in 2020 and 2021. As for the second ground, any purported denial of due process during the administrative hearing held by the Commission was rendered harmless through the de novo review. Comparing the de novo review held here to that from a justice court to a county court at law, perfecting the appeal or review annulled or vacated the judgment or decision of the Commission. See Golden v. Milstead Towing & Storage, Nos. 09-21-00043-CV, 09-21-00044-CV, 09-21-00045-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 2988, at *5 (Tex. App.— Beaumont May 5, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating that: 1) an appeal from the justice court is de novo, 2) the reviewing court does not review alleged errors of the justice court, and 3) the justice court’s decision is set aside upon perfection of the appeal). Furthermore, this panel afforded her the due process to which she was entitled.

AARB-1:019 El Paso County - 171st District Court Filed 11/13/2023 12:00 AM Norma Favela Barceleau District Clerk El Paso County 2021DCV2346 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS 171st JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ELDON RODRIGUEZ and MARIA § RODRIGUEZ, § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § Case No. 2021DCV2346 § HEATHER HARMSTON, JAIME § GARDEA, SYNERGY CONSTRUCT § LLC, GC RENTALS AND § MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a REALTY § ONE GROUP MENDEZ BURK, and § MEGAN TARA HARRIS, § § Defendants. §

DEFENDANTS, GC RENTALS AND MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a REALTY ONE GROUP MENDEZ BURK, HEATHER HARMSTON, JAIME GARDEA, SYNERGY CONSTRUCT LLC’S, JOINT MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS, MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE AND MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, Defendants, GC RENTALS AND MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a

REALTY ONE GROUP MENDEZ BURK (“GC Rentals”), HEATHER HARMSTON

(“Harmston”), JAIME GARDEA (“Gardea”), and SYNERGY CONSTRUCT, LLC (“Synergy”),

(collectively the “Defendants”) in the above-entitled numbered cause, and file this Joint Motion

for Sanctions, Motion to Show Cause, and Motion for Emergency Hearing and says:

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On or about May 18, 2023, Defendant GC Rentals filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’

Responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production (“Motion to

Compel”). This Court heard Defendant GC Rental’s Motion to Compel on July 21, 2023. After

having heard the parties’ arguments, this Court ruled that Plaintiffs would be required to amend

1 1939-407/HABD/1754726 AARB-1:020 their responses and produce all non-privileged documents responsive to Defendant GC Rental’s

Requests for Production on or before August 4, 2023.

Plaintiffs’ counsel required Defendants counsel to appear at his office in order to inspect

and collect documents responsive to production. Counsel for GC Rentals, Gardea and Synergy

appeared and requested copies of the complete file made available for inspection. Plaintiffs’

counsel allegedly produced all documents responsive to Defendant’s Requests. For purposes of

this Motion, Defendants would call this Court’s attention to Defendant GC Rental’s Requests for

Production Nos. 1, 4, 5, 13, 14, 33, and 36. A true and correct copy of Defendant GC Rental’s

Requests for Production is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

On or about November 9, 2023, Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez’s deposition took place. During

this time, counsel inquired about damages and evidence of damages alleged by Plaintiff. Plaintiff

and Plaintiff’s counsel failed to disclose the alleged costs or evidence of alleged costs and damages.

Yet, during Plaintiffs’ counsel’s line of questioning, he sought to enter “Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1” Bates

labeled as Deposition of Eldon 001-0014. A true and correct copy of this Exhibit is attached hereto

as Exhibit B. Said Exhibit had never been produced to Defendants before the deposition.

Plaintiff’s counsel claimed his reasoning for not producing said Exhibit was an “oversight.” The

documents were in Plaintiff’s counsel’s possession since April of 2020.

Prior to the disclosure of these documents on November 9, 2023, Plaintiffs did not disclose

the calculation of economic damages. Further, Defendants were not made aware of any economic

damages that may be susceptible to calculation, which means damages cannot be recovered in a

court of law, and these damages therefore constitute irreparable harm. Plaintiffs’ failure to disclose

as required by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Due to said “oversight” Defendants’ respective

counsel could not properly prepare for Plaintiff’s deposition, was not made reasonably aware of

2 10171-126/CMUN/1597204

AARB-1:021 the calculation of damages alleged by Plaintiffs pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

192 and 196 and were forced to incur unnecessary and unreasonable attorneys’ fees.

II. REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S ORDER

If a party fails to comply with proper discovery requests or to obey an order to provide or

permit discovery, including an order made under 215.1 (an order compelling discovery), the court

in which the action is pending may, after notice and hearing, make such orders in regard to the

failure as are just, and among others the following:

An order disallowing any further discovery of any kind or of a particular kind by the disobedient party.

An order that the matters regarding which the order was made or any other designated fact shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order;

An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting from introducing designated matters into evidence;

An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing with or without prejudice the action of proceedings or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment of default against the opposing part;

See Tex. Civ. P. 215.2(1), (3)-(5).

Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Court’s Order Granting Defendant GC Rental’s

Motion to Compel Discovery. Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to sanctions under the Texas

Rules of Civil Procedure and would respectfully request that the Court sanction Plaintiffs as

1. Order that the Plaintiffs are prohibited from conducting discovery of any kind to support their claims and defenses (Tex. Civ. P. 215.2(1));

2. Other that Plaintiffs pay expenses related to Defendants’ expenses of discovery, expenses for depositions and taxable court costs (Tex. Civ. P. 215.2(2));

3 10171-126/CMUN/1597204

AARB-1:022 3. Order that Plaintiffs are prohibited from supporting or opposing any claim relating to the alleged costs and damages other than the contract, or making any mention or reference to repairs and renovation costs, moving costs, whatsoever; specifically, that Plaintiffs are prevented from introducing evidence related to the repairs of the Property and/or its condition, work performed on the Property, alleged damages to the Property, the costs of moving in/out of the Property, or any other topic related to the repairs and renovation costs, and the moving costs in any manner whatsoever (Tex. Civ. P. 215.2(4));

4. Render a judgment against Plaintiffs, dismissing their claims against Defendant with prejudice (Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.2(5)).

Sanctions for discovery abuse are imposed to: (1) secure compliance with the discovery

rules; (2) deter other litigants from violating the discovery rules; (3) punish parties that violate the

discovery rules; and (4) promote settlements. See Schein v. American Rest. Grp., 852 S.W.2d 496,

497 (Tex. 1993). The sanctions that Defendants request be imposed on Plaintiffs will serve all of

the functions contemplated by the Texas Supreme Court in the Schein opinion. Accordingly,

Defendants would respectfully request that the Court impose all, or a combination of, the above

requested sanctions on Plaintiffs for their undisputed failure to comply with the Court’s Order

Granting Defendant GC Rental’s Motion to Compel.

IV. REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPENSES AS SANCTIONS

Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court’s Order Granting Defendant GC Rental’s

Motion to Compel subjects them to the sanctions listed in Rule 215.2(b). In addition to the

sanctions requested above, Defendants would also request that the Court sanction Plaintiffs by

requiring them to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, that Defendants were

forced to incur as a result of Plaintiffs’ failures. “In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition

thereto, the court shall require the party failing to obey the order or the attorney advising him, or

both, to pay, at such time as ordered by the court, the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees,

4 10171-126/CMUN/1597204

AARB-1:023 caused by the failure, unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or that other

circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Such an order shall be subject to review on

appeal from the final judgment.” See Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.2(b)(8).

A. Failure to Comply with Court’s Order

As a result of the Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court’s Order Granting Defendant

GC Rental’s Motion to Compel, Defendants were forced to incur expenses and attorneys’ fees that

were both reasonable and necessary. Specifically, counsel for Defendant GC Rental’s were

required to draft its Motion for Compel, Defendants’ counsel inspect and gather discovery from

Plaintiffs, review the Court’s Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Compel, attempt to

coordinate the depositions of Plaintiffs, draft its Motion for Emergency Hearing, continuously

update the representatives of the respective Defendants, and ultimately draft this Motion for

Sanctions against the Plaintiffs. These tasks took approximately twenty (20) hours to complete.

Accordingly, Defendants would request that the Court, in addition to the sanctions requested

above, order that Plaintiffs pay Defendants’ reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees in the amount

incurred as a result of Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court’s Order Granting Defendant GC

Rental’s Motion to Compel.

Defendant asks that the Court issue an Order requiring Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ Counsel to

appear and show cause why they should not be held in contempt for violating the Court’s Order

Granting Defendant’s Motion to Compel.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES, CONSIDERED, Defendants pray that this matter be set

for hearing, and after such hearing, impose the requested sanctions on the Plaintiffs, enter any

other sanctions as the Defendants may deem appropriate against the Plaintiff, and for any other

5 10171-126/CMUN/1597204

AARB-1:024 such other and further relief to which Defendants may be justly entitled, general or special, legal

or equitable.

Respectfully submitted,

MOUNCE, GREEN, MYERS SAFI, PAXSON & GALATZAN, P.C. P.O. Drawer 1977 El Paso, Texas 79999-1977 Phone: (915) 532-2000 Fax: (915) 541-1597

By: _______________________________ James A. Martinez State Bar No. 00791192 martinezja@jmeplaw.com Hala A. Abdel-Jaber State Bar No. 24133142 Abdel-jaber@mgmsg.com

Attorneys for Defendants GC Rentals

SCOTT HULSE P.C. 201 E. Main Drive, Suite 1100 El Paso, Texas 79901 (915) 533-2493

By: /s/ Tomas Porras-Acosta _______________ M. BLAKE DOWNEY State Bar No. 24082933 bdow@scotthulse.com TOMAS E. PORRAS-ACOSTA State Bar No. 24115138 tpor@scotthulse.com Attorneys for Defendants Jaime Gardea and Synergy Construct, LLC

6 10171-126/CMUN/1597204

AARB-1:025 Respectfully submitted,

Mario A. Gonzalez 1522 Montana Ave. El Paso, Texas 79902

/s/ Mario A. Gonzalez – with permission By: _________________________________ Mario A. Gonzalez

Attorney for Heather Harmston

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

In compliance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21a (e), I, Hala A. Abdel-Jaber, hereby certify that on the 10th day of November, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was sent electronically and is served on the following parties or attorney(s,) to: Roberta Medina, Rasberry & Associates (rmedina@rasberry.com); Michael Nevarez, 7362 Remcon Circle, El Paso, Texas 79912, mnevarez@lawofficesnrn.com, M. Blake Downey, One San Jacinto Plaza, 201 N. Main Drive, Suite 1100, El Paso, Texas 79901, bdow@scotthulse.com, and Mario A. Gonzalez, 1522 Montana Avenue #100, El Paso, Texas 79902, mario@gonzalezlawfirm.com.

__________________________________ Hala A. Abdel-Jaber

7 10171-126/CMUN/1597204

AARB-1:026 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Terry Silva on behalf of Hala Abdel-Jaber Bar No. 24133142 tsilva@mgmsg.com Envelope ID: 81527968 Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee) Filing Description: Motion for Sanctions Status as of 11/13/2023 9:41 AM MST

Associated Case Party: GC RENTALS AND MANAGEMENT LLC

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

James A.Martinez martinezja@jmeplaw.com 11/10/2023 1:37:50 PM SENT

James Martinez eservice@jmeplaw.com 11/10/2023 1:37:50 PM SENT

Hala Abdel-Jabar abdel-jaber@mgmsg.com 11/10/2023 1:37:50 PM SENT

Case Contacts

Virginia Munoz vmunoz@mgmsg.com 11/10/2023 1:37:50 PM SENT

M. BlakeDowney bdow@scotthulse.com 11/10/2023 1:37:50 PM SENT

Terry Silva tsilva@mgmsg.com 11/10/2023 1:37:50 PM SENT

michael nevarez mnevarez@lawofficesmrn.com 11/10/2023 1:37:50 PM SENT

Denise Macias paralegal-2@lawofficesmrn.com 11/10/2023 1:37:50 PM SENT

Loretta Mata lor.mata@epcounty.com 11/10/2023 1:37:50 PM SENT

Georgina Gallegos ggal@scotthulse.com 11/10/2023 1:37:50 PM SENT

Guy McGunegle gmcg@scotthulse.com 11/10/2023 1:37:50 PM SENT

Mario Gonzalez mario@gonzalezlawfirm.com 11/10/2023 1:37:50 PM SENT

Roberta Medina rmedina@rasberry.com 11/10/2023 1:37:50 PM SENT

AARB-1:027 EXHIBIT A

AARB-1:028 El Paso County - 171 st District Court Filed 5/18/2023 11 :26 AM Norma Favela Barceleau District Clerk El Paso County 2021 DCV2346

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS 171 st JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ELDON RODRIGUEZ and MARIA § RODRIGUEZ, § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § Case No. 2021DCV2346 § HEATHER HARMSTON, JAIME § GARDEA, SYNERGY CONSTRUCT § LLC, GC RENTALS AND § MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a REALTY § ONE GROUP MENDEZ BURK, and § MEGAN TARA HARRIS, § § Defendants. §

DEFENDANT GC RENTALS AND MANAGEMENT LLC D/B/A REALTY ONE GROUP MENDEZ BURK'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

COMES NOW DEFENDANT GC RENTALS AND MANAGEMENT LLC D/B/A

REALTY ONE GROUP MENDEZ BURK (''GC RENTALS") in the above-entitled and

numbered cause and respectfully moves the Court for an Order to compel a proper response to

Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, and in support thereof would

show as follows:

I.

Defendant served Plaintiffs with First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production

on April 5, 2023 pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant attaches to this

instrument and incorporates herein as if set forth at length Plaintiffs Answers and Responses to

Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production.

II.

I939-407/JMAR/l 736803

AARB-1:029 Plaintiffs objected to or faile4 to properly respond to Defendant's Interrogatories Nos. 1,

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 1.5, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 and First Request for Production

Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,

29, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36.

Defendant would show said discovery requests are calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence and are within the scope of discovery established by the Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant requests that this Motion be

set for hearing with notice to all parties and, upon proper hearing, that the Court order Plaintiffs to

fully respond to Defendant's discovery requests without further objection, overrule Plaintiffs

objections and provide the documents requested and for such other and further relief, general or

special, legal or equitable, to wbich Defendant may be justly entitled.

MOUNCE, GREEN, MYERS, SAFI, PAXSON & GALATZAN A Professional Corporation P.O. Box 1977 El Paso, Texas 79999-1977 (915) 532-2000 (915) 541-1597 (fax)

Isl James A. Martinez James A. Martinez State Bar No. 00791192 murtinezja@jmeplaw.com Hala A. Abdel-Jaber State Bar No. 24133142 abdcl-jaberra:mgmsg.com

Attorneys for Defendant GC R entals

2 1939-407/JMAR/173680)

AARB-1:030 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify on this the 18th day of May, 2023, the foregoing pleading was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the Texas Electronic Filing Rules, which will send notification of such filing to the following: Michael Nevarez, 7362 Remcon Circle, El Paso, Texas 79912, mncvarczff1{lawofficcsnrn.corn, M. Blake Downey, One San Jacinto Plaza, 201 N. Main Drive, Suite 1100, El Paso, Texas 79901, bdow@scotthulsc.com, and Mario A. Gonzalez, 1522 Montana Avenue #100, El Paso, Texas 79902, mario@.gonzalezlawfirm.com.

Isl James A. Martinez JAMES A. MARTINEZ

3 l 939-407/JMAR/!736803

AARB-1:031 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS 171 ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ELDON RODRIGUEZ, and § MARIA RODRIGUEZ § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § CAUSE NUMBER: 2021-DCV-2346 § HEATHER HARMSTON, § JAIME GARDEA, § SYNERGY CONSTRUCT LLC, § Ge RENTALS AND MANAGEMENT LLC § d/b/a REALTY ONE GROUP MENDEZ BURK, § and MEGAN TARA HARRIS § § Defendants. §

PLAINTIFF ELDON RODRIGUEZ AND MARIA RODRIGUEZ'S RESPONSES AND ANSWERS To DEFENDANT GC RENTALS ANO MANAGEMENT LLC's FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO PLAINTIFFS

TO: DEFENDANT GC RENTALS AND MANAGEMENT LLC, BY AND THROUGH ITS ATTORNEY OF RECORD, JAMES A. MARTINEZ

Plaintiffs ELDON RODRIGUEZ and MARIA RODRlGUEZ (hereinafter referred to as

"Plaintiffs"), by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby serve this "Plaintiff Eldon

Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez' s Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and

Management LLC's First Set Interr9gatories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs", on

Defendant GC RENTAL AND MANAGEMENT LLC ("Defendant"), in accordance with Rules

192, 193, 195, 196, 197, and 198 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure ("TRCP"), as follows:

FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

I11tenogatorv No. 1:

Please identify all delays you claim were caused by GC Rentals and Management LLC d/b/a Realty One Group Mendez Burk ("Defendant") on the Project.

AARB-1:032 ANSWER:

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad and vague in the use of the term "Project."

Subject to said objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiffs answer as follows: Plaintiffs make no claim for delay.

luterrogatorv No. 2:

Please indicate the amount, if any, you believe is owed to Plaintiffs for the Project.

ANSWER:

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad and vague in the use of the term "Project."

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it impermissibly requires Plaintiffs to marshal all of their evidence.

Subject to said objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiffs answer as follows: See "Plaintif£c;' First Amended Petition", Paragraph 51. See also Plaintiffs' Amended List of Expert Witnesses And Designation of Testifying Experts, Exhibits A and B.

InterrogQtory No. 3:

Please state your full name, address, residence and work telephone numbers, date of birth, place of birth and all names used in your lifetime.

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent the proposed discovery is not relevant to the subject matter of the suit and will not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent the proposed discovery goes beyond the subject matter of the case and reasonable expectations of information that will aid resolution of the dispute.

Subject to said objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiffs answer as follows: c/o Michael R. Nevarez, The· Nevarez'Law Firm, PC, 7362 °i{emcon Circle, El Paso, Texas 79912. Telephone: (915) 225-2255.

Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez's Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management LLC's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, el al. El Paso County, 171" District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 2 of 25

AARB-1:033 lnterrogatorv No. 4:

Please set forth the amount of attorney's fees and expenses you have incurred to date m connection with this proceeding.

ANSWER: Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent the proposed discovery seeks information that would require the creation of a document not in existence.

Subject to said objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiffs answer as follows: Unknown at this time.

Interrogatory No. 5:

If you have any complaints about Defendant's work on the Project, please describe all of them.

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad and vague in the use of the tenn "Project."

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it impermissibly requires Plaintiffs to marshal all of their evidence.

Subject to said objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiffs answer as follows: See "Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition", Paragraphs 20-37. See also Plaintiffs' Amended List of Expert Witnesses And .Designation of Testifying Experts, Exhibits A and B.

/11terrogtttory No. 6:

If you claim Defendant's conduct caused you any damage or any injury, please describe the conduct and identify the kind and/or amount of damage or injury you claim it caused you.

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad and vague in the use of the term "conduct."

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it impermissibly requires Plaintiffs to marshal all of their evidence.

Subject to said objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiffs answer as follows: See "Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition", Paragraphs 20-37. See also Plaintiffs' Amended List of Expert Witnesses And Designation of Testifying Experts, Exhibits A and B. Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez's Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management LL C's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171" District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 3 of 25

AARB-1:034 brterrogatorv No. 7:

If you claim Defendant failed to perform any obligation called for in its contract with you, please describe these failures and any resulting amount you claim you were required to pay.

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad and vague in the use of the term "obligation."

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it impermissibly requires Plaintiffs to marshal all of their evidence.

Subject to said objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiffs answer as follows: See " Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition", Paragraphs 20-37. See also Plaintiffs' Amended List of Expert Witnesses And Designation of Testifying Experts, Exhibits A and B.

[11terrogatorv No. 8:

If you claim Defendant improperly performed any of its work on the Project, please identify that work and identify the amount of damage or injury you claim it caused to you.

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad and vague in the use of the term "Project."

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it impermissibly requires Plaintiffs to marshal all of their evidence.

Subject to said objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiffs answer as follows: See "Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition", Paragraphs 20-37. See also Plaintiffs' Amended List of Expert Witnesses And Designation of Testifying Experts, Exhibits A and B.

Interrogatorv No. 9:

Please describe any work that has not been completed on the Project and explain why it has not been completed.

Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez's Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management LLC's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs Eldon and Maria Rodriguez 'I'. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 17pt District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 4 of 25

AARB-1:035 ANSWER:

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is overly broad and vague in the use of the tenn "Project."

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it impermissibly requires Plaintiffs to marshal all of their evidence.

Subject to said objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiffs answer as follows: See "Plaintiffs' First Amende4 Petition", Paragraphs 20-37. See also Plaintiffs' Amended List of Expert Witnesses And Designation of Testifying Experts, Exhibits A and B.

lnterrogatorv No. JO:

Please describe the factual basis for your contention, if any, that Defendant failed to comply with its contractual obligations to Plaintiff.

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to t~e extent that it is overly broad and vague in the use of the terin "obligations." ·

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it impermissibly requires Plaintiffs to marshal all of their evidence.

Subject to said objections, and without waiv ing same, Plaintiffs answer as follows: See "Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition", Paragraphs 20-37. See also Plaintiffs' Amended List of Expert Witnesses And Designation of Testifying Experts, Exhibits A and B.

lnterrogatorv No. 11:

Please provide the factual basis for your claims, if any, that Defendant committed fraud by misrepresentation or inducement.

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it impennissibly requires Plaintiffs to marshal all of their evidence.

Subject to said objections, an4 without waiving same, Plaintiffs answer as follows: See "Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition", Paragraphs 20-37. See also Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez's Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Renta Is and Management LLC' s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, el al. El Paso County, 111•1 District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 5 of 25

AARB-1:036 Plaintiffs' Amended List of Expert Witnesses And Designation of Testifying Experts, Exhibits A and B.

ltrterrogatorv No. 12:

Please provide the factual basis for your contention, if any, that Defendant's negligence or gross negligence was the proximate cause of any damage or injury to you.

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it impermissibly requires Plaintiffs to marshal all of their evidence.

Subject to said objections, and without waiving same, P laintiffs answer as follows: See "Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition", Paragraphs 20-37. See also Plaintiffs' Amended List of Expert Witnesses And Designation of Testify ing Experts, Exhibits A and B.

lnterrogatorv No. 13:

You claim Defendant committed fraud by misrepresentation or inducement. Please identify each representation you claim Defendant made and describe the manner in which it was false.

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it impermissibly requires Plaintiffs to marshal all of their evidence.

Subject to said objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiffs answer as follows: See "Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition", Paragraphs 20-37. See also Plaintiffs' Amended List of Expert Witnesses And Designation ofTestifying Experts, Exhibits A and B.

lnterrogutorv No. 14:

You claim Defendant committed fraud by non-disclosure. Please describe each fact or circumstance you claim Defendant failed to disclose that constitutes fraud by non-disclosure.

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it impermissibly requires Plaintiffs to marshal all of their evidence.

Subject to said objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiffs answer as Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez's Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management LLC's First Set oflnterrpgatories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, el al. El Paso County, 171"' District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 6 of25

AARB-1:037 follows: See "Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition", Paragraphs 20-37. See also Plaintiffs' Amended List of Expert Witnesses And Designation of Testifying Experts, Exhibits A and B.

Interrogatorv No. 15:

You claim Defendant committed appropriation by theft. Please describe each act or omission by Defendant that you claim constitutes appropriation by theft.

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it impermissibly requires Plaintiffs to marshal all of their evidence.

Subject to said objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiffs answer as follows: See "Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition", Paragraphs 20-37. See also Plaintiffs' Amended List of Expert Witnesses And Designation of Testifying Experts, Exhibits AandB.

lnterrogatorv No. 16:

You claim Defendant was negligent. Please describe each act or omission by Defendant you claim constitutes negligence.

See "Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition", Paragraphs 20-37. See also Plaintiffs' Amended List of Expert Witnesses And Designation of Testifying Experts, Exhibits A and B.

Interrogatorv No. 17:

You claim Defendant was grossly negligent. Please describe each act or omission by Defendant you claim constitutes gross negligence.

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it impermissibly requires Plaintiffs to marshal all of their evidence.

Subject to said objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiffs answer as fo llows: See "Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition", Paragraphs 20-37. See also Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez's Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management LLC's First Set ofinterroge.tories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171 ''District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 7 of25

AARB-1:038 Plaintiffs' Amended List of Expert Witnesses And Designation of Testifying Experts, Exhibits A and B.

Interrogalorv No. 18:

You claim Defendant breached a duty of good faith and fair dealing. Please describe each act or omission by Defendant that you claim constitutes a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

PlaintiffS object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it impermissibly requires Plaintiffs to marshal all of their evidence.

Subject to said objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiffs answer as follows: See "Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition", Paragraphs 20-37. See also Plaintiffs' Amended List of Expert Witnesses And Designation of Testifying Experts, Exhibits A and B.

Interrogatory No. 19:

You claim Defendant violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTP A). Please describe each act or omission by Defendant you claim violates the DTPA.

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it impennissibly requires Plaintiffs to marshal all of their evidence.

Subject to said objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiffs answer as follows: See ''Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition", Paragraphs 20-37. See also Plaintiffs' Amended List of Expert Witnesses And Designation of T estifying Experts, Exhibits A and B.

lnterrogatorv No. 20:

You claim Defendant violated the DTPA. Please identify each portion of the DTPA you claim Defendant violated.

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it imperrnissibly requires Plaintiffs to marshal all of their evidence. Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez's Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management LLC's First Set of fnterrogatories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. ~I Paso County, 171'' District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 8 of25

AARB-1:039 Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it impennissibly requires a legal opinion and a conclusion of law.

Subject to said objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiffs answer as follows: See "Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition", Paragraphs 20-37. See also Plaintiffs' Amended List of Expert Witnesses And Designation of Testifying Experts, Exhibits A and B.

Interrogatorv No. 21:

You assert a claim against Defendant for promissory estoppel. Please describe each promise or representation you claim Defendant made that gives rise to Defendant 's liability under a theory of promissory estoppel.

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it impennissibly requires Plaintiffs to marshal all of their evidence.

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it impermissibly requires a legal opinion and a conclusion of law.

Subject to said objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiffs answer as follows: See "Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition", Paragraphs 20-37. See also Plaintiffs' Amended List of Expert Witnesses And Designation of Testifying Experts, Exhibits A and B.

Interrogatorv No. 22:

Please identify the occupants of the Property for each month from January 1, 2018 to the present and the amount ofrent or other consideration Plaintiffs received for it.

None.

FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO PLAINTIFFS

Request for Production/:

Please produce Defendant's entire file for the Project, excluding any portions you claim are legally privileged.

PlaintiffEldon Rodriguez and Mada Rodriguez's Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management LLC's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 17P'DistrictCourt,CauseNumber202l-DCV-2346 Page9of25

AARB-1:040 Response:

Plaintiffs object to this Request to the extent that it is overly broad and vague in the use of the term "Project."

Subject to said objections, and without waiving same, Plaintiffs respond as follows: Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

Request for Production 2:

Please produce all correspondence you sent to or received from Defendant regarding the Project.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

Request for Production 3:

Please produce all construction plans and specifications for the Project.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez's Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management LL C's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harms/on, et al. El Paso County, 17pt District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 10 of 25

AARB-1:041 Request for Productio11 4:

Please produce all construction diaries, notes, and other contemporaneous memos of any ongoing work that were prepared by employees or agents of Plaintiff.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privilegeq documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and l 96.2(b)(4).

Request for Production 5:

Please produce all invoices for materials purchased for the Project.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

Request for Production 6:

Please produce a copy of any and all invoices received from your attorneys for attorney's fees and expenses to date in this proceeding.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez's Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management LLC's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171'' District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 11 of25

AARB-1:042 Request (or Production 7:

Please produce a copy of any and all check stubs or other records of payment to your attorneys in connection with services rendered by them to you in this proceeding.

Because this request requires the production ofvoluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and l 96.2(b)(4).

Request (or Production 8:

Please attach copies of any and all statements previously made by Defendant, its employees, or representatives concerning the subject matter of this lawsuit, that are in your possession, custody or control. For the purpose of this request, a statement previously made is (a) written, signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the person making it, or (b) a stenographic, mechanical, electrical or other type of recording, or any transcription thereof which is a substantially verbatim recital of a statement made by the person and contemporaneously recorded.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

Request for Production 9:

Please produce all non-privileged records, wntmgs or other documents evincing any settlement agreement of any nature whatsoever that you have entered into with anyone pertaining to the Project or the Property.

Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez's Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management LLC's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heaiher Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171 ' 1 District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 12 of 25

AARB-1:043 Response:

Because this request requires the production ofvoluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the l)efendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and l 96.2(b)(4).

Request for Production 10:

Please produce all photographs, diagrams, schematics, charts, models, or other graphic depictions of the events or damages made the basis of this lawsuit, including any and all photographs or videos demonstrating, displaying or showing any effect or condition allegedly resulting from the events made the basis of this suit.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

Request for Production 11:

Please produce a copy of any fee engagement letter you have executed with your attorneys in connection with this proceeding.

Becaus.e this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

PlaintiffEldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez's Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management LLC's First Set oflnterrogatories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171'1 District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 13 of25

AARB-1:044 Request (01· P1·oductio11 12:

If you claim Defendant failed to perfonn any of the work called for in its contract with you, please produce all non-privileged records that reflect these failures.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

Request (or Production 13:

If you claim Defendant improperly performed any of its work on the Project, please produce all non-privileged records that reflect the improper work and records that show the amount you were required to pay, if any, to correct it.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Ru le of Civil Procedure 193.5, and I 96.2(b)(4).

Request for Productiorr U:

If you claim any of Defendant's conduct caused damage, please produce all non- privileged records that demonstrate the kind and amount of damage you claim it caused.

R esponse:

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez's Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management LLC's First Set oflnterrogatories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harms/on, et al. El Paso County, 171' 1 District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 14 of25

AARB-1:045 Request {or Prod11clio11 15:

Please produce all documents Plaintiffs sent to or received from Defendant regarding the Project.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

Request {or Production 16:

Please produce all non-privileged documents Plaintiffs sent to or received from any insurance company regarding the Project.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

Requ est for Productio1117:

Please produce all non-privi leged documents that evince or reflect any delays you claim Defendant caused on the Project.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez's Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management LLC's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 15 of 25

AARB-1:046 Request for Prod11ctio11 18:

You claim Defendant made fraudulent representations to you. Please produce all non- privileged records that reflect any such statements or representations.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

Request for Production 19:

You claim Defendant breached a contract. Please produce all non-privileged records that reflect the terms of the contract you claim Defendant breached.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and l 96.2(b)(4).

Request for Productio1r 20:

You claim Defendant is liable for promissory estoppel. Please produce all non-privileged records that reflect each promise or representation you claim Defendant made that gives rise to liability for promissory estoppel.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez's Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management LL C's First Set of Jnterrogatories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171" District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 16 of25

AARB-1:047 date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

Request for Production 2 I:

You claim Defendant is liable for fraud by non-disclosure. Please produce records that reflect each fact or circumstance you claim Defendant failed to disclose that constitutes fraud by non- disclosure.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

Request for Production 22:

You claim Defendant is liable for appropriation by theft. Please produce all non-privileged records that you believe support your claim against Defendant for appropriation by theft.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

Request for Prot/11ctio11 23:

You claim Defendant acted negligently. Please produce all non-privileged records that reflect any act or omission by Defendant that you claim constitutes negligence.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez's Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management LLC's First Set oflnterrogatories and Requests For Production To PlaintiffS Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, el al. El Paso County, 171" District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 17 of2S

AARB-1:048 available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

Req11est (Or Production 24:

You claim Defendant acted grossly negligently. Please produce all non-privileged records that reflect any act or omission by Defendant that you claim constitutes gross negligence.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

Request (Or Production 25:

You claim Defendant breached a duty of good faith and fair dealing. Please produce all non- privileged records you believe create a duty of good faith and fai r dea ling on the part of Defendant

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

Request (or Productio11 26:

You sue Defendant for breach of a duty of good faith and fair dealing. Please produce all non- privileged records you claim reflect any act or omission by Defendant that constitutes a breach of tbe duty of good faith and fair dealing.

Plaintiff E ldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez's Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management LLC's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harms/on. el al. El Paso County, 171'1 District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 18 of 25

AARB-1:049 Response:

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and l 96.2(b)(4).

Request for Production 27:

You sue Defendant for civil conspiracy. Please produce all non-privileged records you claim reflect any act or omission by Defendant that gives rise to liability for civil conspiracy.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

Request for Production 28:

You claim Defendant violated the Texas DTPA. Please produce al l non-privileged records you believe reflect any act or omission by Defendant that you claim constitutes a violation of the DTPA.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civ ii Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez's Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management LLC ' s First Set oflnterrogatories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171" District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 19 of25

AARB-1:050 Request for Production 29:

Please produce all records you sent to or received from any insurance company from the period January 1, 2018 to the present regarding the Property, its condition or repairs made to it.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

Re,ruest for Productio11 30:

Please produce all non-privileged records that reflect all rental income you have received for the Property from the period January 1, 2018 to the present.

Request for Production 31:

Please produce all written leases for any occupant of the Property for the period from January l , 2018 to the present.

Request for Production 32:

Please produce all inspection reports for the Property.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this res ponse. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez's Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management LLC's First Set oflnterrogatories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171" District Court, Cause Number 202 l-DCY-2346 Page 20 of 25

AARB-1:051 opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

Request for Production 33:

Please produce records that reflect all repairs you performed on the Property from January 1, 2018 to the present.

Response: Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

Request (or Producfion 34:

Please produce any appraisals you obtained for the Property from January 1, 2018 to the present.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs wi ll make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable of date, time and place, in accor.dance with Texas Rule Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4). ··· ·

Request (or Production 35:

Please produce all records that reflect your efforts to market or sell the Property from January 1, 2018 to the present.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez's Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management LLC's First Set oflnterrogatorics and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmsto11, et al. El Paso County, 171" District Court, Cause Number 2021 -DCV-2346 Page 2 1 of2S

AARB-1:052 possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

Request (or Production 36:

If you had to have any of the work any Defendant performed repaired or corrected, please produce records that reflect the nature and cost of the repair or corrective work.

Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non-privileged documents in Plaintiffs' possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

May 5, 2023 Sincerely,

THE NEVAREZ LAW FIRM, PC 7362 Remcon Circle El Paso, Texas 79912 Telephone: (915) 225-2255 Facsimiles: (915) 845-3405 Email: MNevarezl@.LawOfficesMRN.com

I Michael R. Nevarez MICHAEL R. NEVAREZ State Bar No. 14933400

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez's Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management LLC's First Set oflnterrogatories end Requests For Production To Plaintiffs Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmslon. et al. El Paso County, 171" District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 22 of 25

AARB-1:053 VERIFICATION STATE OF CALlFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

BEFORE ME. the undersigned Notary Public, on this day personally appeared Eldon

Rodriguez. who being by me duly sworn on his oath deposed and said that he is the Plaintiff in

the above-entitled and numbered cause; that he hos reod the ebovc and foregoing "Plaintiff Eldon

Rodriguez o.nd Maria Rodriguez's Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and

Management LLC's rirst Set of lntcrrogatoric:. and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs'', and

that every statement contained in I.he intcrrogolory answers is within his knowledge and true and

correct.

Ar'IOtaly publlcQfolherotllcer completing lrllt certtllcatevenfiosonl)' !he klentityofthelndMdulll who alilned the docilrnent to Wl1ictt lhla certiftc:a10 Is altad'le

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on th~ flL day of_O___._f;" _ ____,

20....2:!_, to certify wb.ich witness my hand and official seal.

MASOUD MJ~~RAVESll (Seal) :$ • Noury Publfc • C.llfomla t .~ ,., ; Loi Anaeles Cou"ty I _/'Notary Public, State of California • • Conimlsslon • 2122064 ~ My Comm. Uolrfl Mar 21. 2024

" Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Mari~ Rodriguez's Response:. and Answots 10 Dcfendnnt GC Reutals and Management LLC's First Sec of Jn1crrogn1orics and Requesr.s For Productio11 To Plaintiffil Eldon and Morlu Rodriguez v. Heather Ham1sfrm, r.1 al. · E! Pa.so County, 171'1 Dislrict Court, Cause Nwnber 2021-DCV-2346 Pogc 23 of25

AARB-1:054 VERJFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public. on this day personally appeared Maria

Rodriguez. who being by me duly sworn on her oath deposed nnd said that she is the Plaintiff in

the above-entitled and numbered cause; thnl she has read the above and foregoing "Plaintiff

Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez's Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and

Mnna.gcmcnt LLC's First Set of Intcrrogatorics and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs", and

that every slatemenl contained in the interrogatory answers is within her knowle-

CO!TCCl.

A notary pu!>Hcorolheroffimcompleting thlG ce/1ificale verifies onll' !he idillllitv of the Individual who signed thsdocument tolllhien \/ljs 4t~~ Maria Rodrigu~~ / °'1rti~cateis attac:hecl, and notlhi tn.llltulneu, ao::uracy, 0< vaildlty of that document

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on the /l!J_ day of_,_0"'""'5="'--___;.--• 20 n , to certify which witness my hand and official ~eat.

(Seal)

My Corrunission expires: tOJ;,dit/loL r

Plaintiff Eldon Rodriiuez and Mwia Rodriguez's Responses 11nd Answers to Defendant GC Rtintals and Management LLC's first Set of Interrogatories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Hanns/all, el al, El Paso Counly, 171.i District Coun, Cause Number202J-DCV-2346 Page 24 of25

AARB-1:055 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFF ELDON

RODRIGUEZ AND MARIA RODRIGUEZ'S RESPONSES AND ANSWERS TO

DEFENDANT GC RENTALS AND MANAGEMENT LLC'S FIRST SET OF

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO PLAINTIFFS, with all

supporting attachments, exhibits, and affidavits referenced therein, if any, was served either by

regular first-class mail, postage prepaid, and/or by e-Filing via an Electronic Filing Service

Provider, and/or via facsimile, to the following parties in interest, on this May 5, 2023:

ATTORN.F;Y FOR GC RENTALS And MANAGEMENT LLC: James A. Martinez Hala A. Abel-Jaber MOUNCE, GREEN, MYERS, SAFI, PAXSON & GALATZAN P.O. Box 1977 El Paso, TX 79999-1977 Telephone: (915) 532-2000 Email: martineja!a{jmeplaw.com abdel-jaber@mgmsg.com

Isl Michael R. Nevarez MICHAELR.NEVAREZ

Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez's Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management LLC's First Set oflnterrogetories end Requests For Production To Plaintiffs Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. E l Paso County, 171.t District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 25 of 25

AARB-1:056 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Barbara Divis on behalf of James Martinez Bar No. 791192 BDivis@mgmsg.com Envelope ID: 75773441 Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee) Filing Description: Def. GC Rentals' Motion to Compel Discovery Status as of 5/18/2023 3:01 PM MST

Name BarNumber Email Timestam pS u bmitted Status

James A.Martinez martinezja@jmeplaw.com 5f18/202311:26:18AM SENT

James Martinez eservice@jmeplaw.com 5/18/202311:26:18AM SENT

Hala Abdel-Jabar abdel-jaber@mgmsg.com 5/18/202311:26:18 AM SENT

M. BlakeDowney bdow@scotthulse.com 5/18/2023 11:26:18 AM SENT

Barbara Divis bdivis@mgmsg.com 5/18/2023 11:26:18 AM SENT

Terry Silva tsilva@mgmsg.com 5/18/2023 11:26:18 AM SENT

Desiree M.Duarte ddua@scotthulse.com 5/18/2023 11:26:18 AM SENT

michael nevarez mnevarez@lawofficesmrn.com 5/18/2023 11:26:18 AM SENT

Denise Macias paralegal-2@1awofficesmrn.com 5/18/2023 11:26:18 AM SENT

Georgina Gallegos ggal@scotthulse.com 5/18/2023 11:26:18 AM SENT

Guy McGunegle gmcg@scotthulse.com 5/18/2023 11:26:18 AM SENT

Mario Gonzalez mario@gonza!ezlawfirm.com 5/18/2023 11:26:18 AM SENT

AARB-1:057 EXHIBIT B

AARB-1:058 MNevarez@LawOfficesMRN.com

From: E[don Rodriguez Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 1:52 PM To: mnevarez@lawofficesmrn.com Subject: Eldon D Rodriguez expenses

#136 blvd movers 5/9/18 $6036.92 pick-up #1706 blvd movers 4/18/18 $5334.46 delivery Total arnount; $11.391.38

#137 cirrlio arrieta 4/20/18 $400.00 rock material #138 mart! ronqui!lo 4/26/18 $11000.00 rock material #140 protety profit 4/28/18 $86.00 property profit #148 martin somboa 4/6/18 $1,720.00 shutters #152 martin ronqu!lio 4/30/18 $1,000.00 rock material # 151 martin ronqullio 4/28/18 $500.00 rock material #155 martin ronqul!lo 5/2/18 $550.00 rock material #156 carman canqas 5/17/18 $150.00 plumbing #157 cristina rfvera 5/21/18 $200.00 plumbing #159 adrlan congas 5/25/18 $150,00 plumbing #160 adrian congas 5/27/18 $150.00 plumbing #154 martin ronquillo 5/18/18 $1,300.00 concrete Martin somboa $11 720.00 shutters Total amount: $8.926.00

#812 moving to ros angeles: company~ inland sea 4/27/19 $5,151.SO

construction@ home~ el paso, texas garage construction- shelves@ el paso1 texas $1,200.00 television installation -3 t.v. 600.00 box material for packing and moving: both ways for el paso house and los ange!es house $11000.00 total amount: 3.800.00

overall amount of all expenses: $29,258.88

1 Oeposltloo of E1do.1 Rodriguez ELDON. OOi

AARB-1:059 /<} ov e r!s , .. 8/Yd /r1~vet~ .J/f/18 to3t '!!:. ?v /1/11/ 111.ver'!; 'f/l~fr:F 53.>9 ~) /.kl!•· ·11J'f ,,~ 8

_,/St - ··: # -157 C/ rret"c /lrr-i et 4 lf/~8 )/- .;:C Lf{J...- ;f~c,f"' /Yu,"l! Ro~<-<--/~ '7/~/1&- /:i6£~- ~e:rrs c,;o

. It;~ ?rre r l }' 7i--ah'1 o/7- g j /tt 8d.~ j-7r~ ~fi.(

~~~ /'1/l ft/ii/~p 6~ o/1/!B N( /lu~ .5 h tJCce-l'f /.S;L 17A r7 '¥ !\c~'} .-1..-1!~ 't/5~/11 1 / t7t!J ~ /(Je;t -7 # 1£1 , faliiffrV ~1(j:-//f,·s Y;i_q//i s~ :;!. /Jot!.lr- ./I/SS- ~IA 1-cw lf,,IV,t µ,f/t~ 0./1&' S-2>~ /!If I"'--\ . r(l-;sc, - CA.tl1/11v C-1Nf115 0711~ /.56· ;IZj /11{)////I? :#/s7 C.rr'5 L//V/J fol/e/A 5/.l-1 /8 µ-o ~ /7ti.'Mb #IYfj Gl.d r bt/V Co"'Jii 5 51~,7;g I /sa:::: /1!u11b . _(I/tlJ Mri/IN e,,z,.,~ 5J;;.7j/g /~~ f'/v/'1 b fr/S'f . ft)r- rC,'lf/ ~oi//1 f;?r)IJJ /3 a,;~

~ />1m 51~-tt};; ,.. .... ,

lAn-~t. .~ f) v~ 6e~.7: e~~ 8/r~ - /;LJrg~

1-ll ........., @(nrt ;Iv :; w7 C#-tf 81"'·, j7P<# i:;::fJ.,~f/i~ 3 ;Z. ' IV~ ._. /~ '¢-r:J!:!- .

( .3 gttzt

Deposition of Eldon Rodriguez ELDON - 002

AARB-1:060 Page 5of12

Site Paid Date Serial Routing Account PC Amount Sequence# VIEWPOINTE 20180312 136 121042B8 2291561674 000060 6,036.92 8615126267

ELDON D RODRIGUEZ 136 730::! WEST\.AWN Allf; • · WESTCHESTER. CA. 90

.. .· .. .. . :·... . : :~ ~ ~ .: ~., .. ··-' . .-: -.: ·.·- ..

.:.~.

Copyright© 2002-06 Wells Fargo&. Company. All rights reserved.

https://oibservices.wellsfargo.cornJOIB/ControllerServlet 2/22/2020 Deposition of Eldon Rodriguez ELDON-003

AARB-1:061 Pagel of 11

- -- ---- - - -- Site Paid Date Serial Routing Account PC ~ Sequence# ~ VIEVVPOINTE 20160423 """137" 12104288 2291561674 000060 400.00 8816660626

' ! ', , .

·, ~I

'

Copyright© 2.002.-06 Wells Fargo & Company. All rights "'5erved.

https://oibservices.wellsfargo.com/OIB/ControllerServlet 2/22/2020 Deposition of Eldon Rodriguez ELDON- 004

AARB-1:062 Page 1 of 12

Site Paid Date Serial Routing Account PC Amount Sequence# VIEINPOINTE 20180427 138 12104288 2291561674 000060 1,000.00 8210680101

ELDON D RODRIGUEZ 138 7305 WE.Sn.AWN "Vii •&-U/1220-

*'"~ ~/f<2 D•1t• WE6TCt4E.$TEFI. CA &004$-lOllY

I $ /~ f::!!-- ~ 0onw D &::.

oueo oo·ooo'u - ··-- \H>Vl:>OJ .. LVvu• · - - n-·:J!~ l8' CC": 999Harss1 -~--·- -· ·-----~--· -..-...~--..._-.,~r--ws-rnoo-a3--nt1~ms r>s" '' 111r - ~f =··oo:::rarnatttro 6Ll~i!b;n t=t · r.e-::i.;,,

- ;;:.,= ·

i: ·-... -;: • lf,. ; . \,\,•11 " ' - ' " ' ~·\j, •" ••IO ...... 0 OH .... ~··~•ho.I •·I\ ••••, •• c. ......, . . . . ..... ~

.~ . ._.. -. . i v ..

Copyright © 2002-06 Wells Far90 &. Company. All rights reserved.

https://oibservices.wellsfargo.com/OIBIControllerServlet 2/22/2020 - Deposition of Eldon Rodriguez: ELDON-005

AARB-1:063 Print Images Page 1 of2

Routing Sequence# Paid Date Amount Account §erialCapture Source 12104288 8818134125 05042018 $86.00 2291561674 140 00007559

El.DON 0 RODRIGUEZ ...., 140 7306 WESnAW.. AYE wt& TCHEST l:A. CA 90Gol$-106; ........

.' 0 J. ' Seq:Sl :·~2 'Batch: 659133 ;g ~ ;-o :Date: 05/P4/18 ~~~~ S110 : &&11s1 ss1au1e gm.:oz-1 ' '" . ' ··•; . .. , . .. , . .. .. I ' •• .. . . .. ' .. ~ ~AT : li;9113 CC : Ut'i0U1Hii o~~x~ ,,, . . . . . . .. . :.. . ~; ·· ~ ~ I TP'> ; I':• I! H ~T , ;i "C' ~ ~ X • •• ·• ., ,, ·• ....... ........., .... . . ,. .. ....... . ~1,''!.lllnm~Pl lrl t\1. "VI 1>111 ~i!jr!2~;!;

;;;; =:!J~ Qs;J ·; H' .. · I ~Jn~ 0 gj • ,• • •• • \ ~ • ~ • • 1 . . . ;4 -< ~ 0 -

I> • ' i•• ... ~·..,•• ~ ,1· •• 0 : . I 0 1 0 • •

1• ., • • : ' '·· ••.,r ··" '' \, 1, ~ ...., . ... , .. u1• " I ... \

r .,,

i -~ ~ v Co -. . I

https://oibservices.wellsfargo.com/OIB/Printlmage.jsp 2/22/2020 Deposition of Eldon Rodriguez ELDON -006

AARB-1:064 Page 3of12

----------- ----·~-- - --- -------

211!. Paid Date Serial Routing Account PC Amount Sequence# VIEW'POINTE 20180406 148 121D4288 2291561674 000062 1,720.00 2484602343

ELDON D RODRIGUEZ 148 T30S WEST\AWN AVE 18-2"4/1220 4e:lt> WESTCHESTER, C~ 90045-10511

;:1: . . ' -I •' r r .·.

... .. .. . .•• ... .. . .· ~ ··

.·,...: ,.1i•Hr-

r:;;

Copyright © 2002·06 Wells Fargo &. Company. AHrights reseJVed.

https;//oibservices.wellsfargo.com/OIB/Contro llerServlet 2/22/2020 ---oi!position of Eldon Rodriguez ELDON-007

AARB-1:065 Print Im.ages Page I of 2

Routing Sequence# Paid Date Amount Account Serial Capture Source 12104288 8610844669 05012018 $1000.00 2291561674 152 00007559

·- .. _,--- .. ~ ·- .. ·- ' ELDON 0 RODRIGUEZ 152 7l05 W~Sl\.AW .. AVE WESTC:t1E6TER. C4' 800'6·10611

, , r . ·seq: 51 • . OU8[) •ttttatttittttttXlKJ~J Batch: 5482 79 oo·ooa•u Date: 05 / 01/ 18

! )j:lcl4J 45t::)

------ --~--··:;-~w• -- ,rr.~ 'Tn21'!f ~c:e99eea1~a3- - -----...1.1.uOuOO.,.O~--i..IJ.-.1t(~GQ ;;;a , JWw+• HJ"t·~r-vp"""S~.orr1.-t-I1,...S...,i....-tl"'HT~----------~· .. ...,,...-- ,.. t(PU a1oino1sa ... 6Ylf~l1rnont !C 'fX3-tfO .. , ·S' ...so._ .....,..._ <. .... ,.. >.: .,. -~··... ·~ •po••.- ~l.IUC\Jt \l h !)1.lt1 ~,;,If~ ltt"CI ~w·• : I•

i"· •• I

https:J/oibservices.wellsfargo.com/OIB/Printlmage.jsp 2/22/2020 Deposition of Eldon Rodriguez ELDON - 008

AARB-1:066 Print Images Pagel of 2

Routing Sequence# Paid Date Amount ~ SerlalCapture Source 12104288 8819544971 05172018 $150.00 2291561674 156 00007215

ELDON D RODRIGUEZ 156 T30$ W !STLAWN AVE WESTCHESTEFI, CA 9004:i-10:5'i

>312081089< - 0002 4497 - 2$846874 05/17/2018. 18:20:27

https://oibservices.wcllsfargo.com/OIB/Printlmage.jsp 2/22/2020 Deposition of Eldon Rodriguez ELDON - 009

AARB-1:067 Print Images Page 1 of2

Routing Sequence# Paid Date ~ Account SerialCapture Source 12104288 8213703784 05212018 $200.00 2291561674 1S7 00007215

ELI>ON D RODRIGUEZ 157 'l30S WESTLAWN AVE WESTCHa>TeR. GA ~10Sll

' /Oo1e

~~~~~-+-~~~~:L--~~~-/~ s .jl.r't1~/ -~

>312081034< -0005 0630 - 28023604 ... ·~ ; l> !...

- ~· ~

~ · ;- !J) . ~ °" oi;"I. F ·~ !:!

..r .... » I~ 05/21/2018 -18:57:31

.,.. J ~

"j ., ~

•• - ~

\ 0 •

https://oibservices.wellsfargo.com/OIB/Printimage.jsp 2/22/2020 Deposition of Eldon Rodriguez ELDON- 010

AARB-1:068 Page 2 of 3

------ - --·------·-· ----·-·... · ----- -----· --·~· - - - -··- -------· -- --··- ----- ..-- ---- -- ~ Paid Date Seria l Routing Account PC Amount Sequence# VIEWPOINTE 20180525 159 12104288 2291561674 000060 50.00 8810328544

ELDON D AOORIGIUEZ 159 1&-2411Z!ll 41139

~pg"'• 7ao!l~WNAVC WESTCHESTEA. CA 900A6-1059

IS~

...... . i 0..-. )(

•g · ::c

,., -~· ..... ,22"1~5£,&.t,?t.. m Al§ 7". .~'f.~~-~ R~1G~_£Z n :j:;. .... - · , ·, ~; IJ f ..~ '·~ ' :::i:

~FalVrn·tru•it:tlilflstrV $1111118111111111 Include: .. ·. . i~ "' ""' -.,., m • lllatclli•~ auouflt .,.. chKlc nurllbu on w• tP•to•I No. g_,.o,1>411 ' · · :!:' ~ •The Se"ori"I Won..!!' pautm an oatk 4tsf; 4ppo•1 ri.~1" (Ion• •nd b~ek ·' ' ... ,f ' __; "' .. J "O

• 1t . ., ..... ·~ · •'" "' - Q

~

- ---------------·· ·- ··-- - ------ ..· - - - ... - --~-··

Copyright© 2002·06 Wells Fargo&. Company. All rights re~rved.

hnps://oibservices.wellsfargo.com/OIB/ControllerServlet 2/22/2020 Deposition of Eldon Rodriguez ELDON - 01 1

AARB-1:069 Print Images Page 1 of 2

Routing Sequence# Paid Date Amount Account SerialCapture Source 12104288 851389B95S 05292018 $150.00 2291561674 160 00007559

.. .. ; '

https ://oibservices. we llsfargo.com/0IB/Printlmage.jsp 2/22/2020 Deposition of Eldon Rodriguez ELDON-012

AARB-1:070 1-'rmt images Page 1 of 2

Routing Seguence # Paid Date Amount Account SerlalCapture Source 12104288 8610844670 05012018 $1300.00 2291581674 154 00007559

-..._------ -------~- .. ..,.,, ELDON 0 RODRIGUEZ 154 7305 WlSll..AWN A.VE WESTCH£STER..CA ~1069

Pollan 0 -=-- --

·-··- - ·-· ,_, ri .. .· . :' ... , ·seq: 52 .. - :z .., 02/BD ., ttttttttt1ttttSIXlNJ>1:> 1 ·Batch: 548279 ,., oo·oos:' a >t:i.J4J 4u·J Date: 05/01/18 - - - . ·- - •

.. ·, ..i .... I~ ! ':"' r- "Cl .,, •':' ·- .

•!:i . . .... I

Deposition of Eldon Rodriguez ELDON· 013

AARB-1:071 rnm images Page 1 of2

Routing Sequence # Paid Date Amount Account SerialCapture Source 12104286 8610844670 05012018 $1300.00 2291561674 154 00007559

ELDON D RODRIGUEZ --.. ~---~ .... ---~- ·- 154 730~W~STI.AWN AVE WESTCHESTER. CA tc»e6-1068

bate

I$ /3ctr~ -- -- =

-

.·-··--·-· = . .. :" 1 . t I !'• , ·seq: 52 OZ/80 ' ., Ut:ttUtU:nUUXlllJ)IJ 'Batch: 5482 79 oo·oor 1 1s 1f'il4J 4n::i Date: 05/01/18

U UVl ..Ut.UJOCllf · · - gl"i'~S;l'tl79 CC : &999U1583 ~- ,- ~-------.-- - ' --,...,..,.,...-~...,.~i600 33 Xi*,,....,,.~J1"T.. l'~S~ . 0.,. ., . .1rtrti'""s.-11M..-irr-----......-~----...--- .. '6o:i; 1··'8t0t/t!flttr 6?1Urf'Oti..ijJ mo:-.;n~t-=·-ae'l"'C'""""l"1TX"F:t--.rern-====""""========- ~ ~ ~ rr-- ;; ;2 !"" i ~

0 . - 1· ~ ~ "O

I

Deposition of Eldon Rodriguez ELDON - 014

httos : //oibservices.wellsfar,m . com/OTR/Printfm~uP ic::n

AARB-1:072 mnevarez@lawofficesmrn.com

From: no-reply@efilingmail.tylertech.cloud Sent: Friday, November 10, 2023 1:39 PM To: mnevarez@lawofficesmrn.com Subject: Notification of Service for Case: 2021DCV2346, Eldon Rodriguez and Maria RodriguezVSHeather Harmston, Jaime Gardea, Synergy Construct LLC, GC RENTALS AND MANAGEMENT LLC, Megan Tara Harris for filing Motion (No Fee), Envelope Number: 81527968

Notification of Service Case Number: 2021DCV2346 To help protect y Micro so ft Office p auto matic downlo picture from the EFile State Lo go Case Style: Eldon Rodriguez and Maria RodriguezVSHeather Harmston, Jaime Gardea, Synergy Construct LLC, GC RENTALS AND MANAGEMENT LLC, Megan Tara Harris Envelope Number: 81527968

This is a notification of service for the filing listed. Please click the link below to retrieve the submitted document. If the link does not work, please copy the link and paste into your browser. You can also obtain this document by following the steps on this article.

Filing Details Case Number 2021DCV2346 Eldon Rodriguez and Maria RodriguezVSHeather Harmston, Jaime Case Style Gardea, Synergy Construct LLC, GC RENTALS AND MANAGEMENT LLC, Megan Tara Harris Date/Time Submitted 11/10/2023 1:37 PM MST Filing Type Motion (No Fee) Defendants GC Rentals and Management LLC d/b/a Realty One Group Mendez Burk, Heather Harmston, Jaime Gardea and Synergy Filing Description Construct, LLC's Joint Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiffs, Motion to Show Cause and Motion for Emergency Hearing Filed By Terry Silva GC RENTALS AND MANAGEMENT LLC:

James Martinez (martinezja@jmeplaw.com)

James Martinez (eservice@jmeplaw.com) Service Contacts Hala Abdel-Jabar (abdel-jaber@mgmsg.com)

Other Service Contacts not associated with a party on the case:

1 AARB-1:073 Virginia Munoz (vmunoz@mgmsg.com)

M. Downey (bdow@scotthulse.com)

Terry Silva (tsilva@mgmsg.com)

michael nevarez (mnevarez@lawofficesmrn.com)

Denise Macias (paralegal-2@lawofficesmrn.com)

Loretta Mata (lor.mata@epcounty.com)

Georgina Gallegos (ggal@scotthulse.com)

Guy McGunegle (gmcg@scotthulse.com)

Mario Gonzalez (mario@gonzalezlawfirm.com)

Roberta Medina (rmedina@rasberry.com)

Document Details Served Document Download Document This link is active for 30 days.

2 AARB-1:074 El Paso County - 171st District Court Filed 11/13/2023 12:00 AM Norma Favela Barceleau District Clerk El Paso County 2021DCV2346 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS 171ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ELDON RODRIGUEZ, and § MARIA RODRIGUEZ § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § CAUSE NUMBER: 2021-DCV-2346 § HEATHER HARMSTON, § JAIME GARDEA, § SYNERGY CONSTRUCT LLC, § GC RENTALS AND MANAGEMENT LLC § d/b/a REALTY ONE GROUP MENDEZ BURK, § and MEGAN TARA HARRIS § § Defendants. §

PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED LIST OF EXPERT WITNESSES AND DESIGNATION OF TESTIFYING EXPERTS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE BONNIE RANGEL:

COME NOW ELDON RODRIGUEZ AND MARIA RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiffs in the

above-styled and -numbered cause of action (hereinafter jointly referred to as “Plaintiffs” and/or

“RODRIGUEZ”), by and through the undersigned counsel, and hereby timely file this “Plaintiffs’

Third Amended List of Expert Witnesses And Designation of Testifying Experts”, designating the

expert witnesses expected to be called upon to testify at the trial of this matter, in accordance with

the Scheduling Order and Discovery Control Plan, filed October 30, 2023, as follows:

I. TESTIFYING EXPERT WITNESSES.

1. John Estrada, Inspector #7636 315 Alvarez Drive El Paso, TX 79932 Telephone: (915) 845-7067

AARB-1:075 Expert John Estrada, Professional Inspector, will testify regarding (i) the numerous code discrepancies and structural problems with the real property located at 9328 McFall Drive, El Paso, Texas, and (ii) the “Property Inspection Report” that Estrada prepared, particularly the “2x4 framing thru-out/not consistent with 2x6 framing as indicated/blue print.”

a. The documents, tangible things, models, or data compilations that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the Expert in anticipation of the Expert’s testimony are itemized in the Expert Estrada’s Property Inspection Report dated June 10, 2018, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

b. As discovery is ongoing, Expert Estrada has not yet prepared a final written expert report regarding the discoverable facts, but said report will be forthwith produced as soon as reasonably possible after it has been completed and reduced to tangible form.

c. Plaintiffs will make the Expert available for deposition reasonably promptly after this designation, at a mutually agreeable time and place, in full accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 195, entitled “Discovery Regarding Testifying Expert Witnesses.”

d. Expert John Estrada’s current résumé is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

e. The Expert may also reference the following:

i. Exhibit H - G-3ngineering Report. ii. Exhibit I - New Proposed Residence. iii. Exhibit J - Truss Engineering Drawings.

2. Jaime Gallo, PE, CCM GECCA, LLC 801 Myrtle Ave., Suite 101 El Paso, TX 79901 Telephone: (915) 229-6742

Expert Jaime Gallo, Principal Engineer, will testify regarding (i) the “Executive Summary Report” that Gallo prepared, and (ii) Gallo’s engineering assessment of the structural condition of the real property located at 9328 McFall Drive, El Paso, Texas.

a. The documents, tangible things, models, or data compilations that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the Expert in anticipation of the Expert’s testimony are itemized in the Expert Gallo’s Executive Summary Report dated June 29, 2021, attached hereto as Exhibit C.

b. As discovery is ongoing, Expert Gallo has not yet prepared a final written expert Plaintiffs’ Third Amended List of Expert Witnesses and Designation of Testifying Experts Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, Jaime Gardea, and Synergy Construct LLC El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 2 of 7

AARB-1:076 report regarding the discoverable facts, but said report will be forthwith produced as soon as reasonably possible after it has been completed and reduced to tangible form.

c. Plaintiffs will make the Expert available for deposition reasonably promptly after this designation, at a mutually agreeable time and place, in full accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 195, entitled “Discovery Regarding Testifying Expert Witnesses.”

d. Expert Jaime Gallo’s current résumé is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

i. Exhibit H - G-3ngineering Report. ii. Exhibit I - New Proposed Residence. iii. Exhibit J - Truss Engineering Drawings.

3. Mr. Thomas Given, CPA Given CPA, PC 6006 N. Mesa St., Suite 328 El Paso, Texas 79912 Telephone: (915) 585-1900

Expert Tom Given, Certified Public Accountant with Given CPA, PC, will testify regarding the quantification of Plaintiffs’ damages.

a. The documents, tangible things, models, or data compilations that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the Expert in anticipation of the Expert’s testimony cannot be itemized at this time, as discovery is incomplete.

b. As discovery is incomplete, Expert Given has not yet prepared a final written expert report regarding the discoverable facts. Said expert report will be forthwith produced as soon as reasonably possible, after it has been completed and reduced to tangible form.

c. Plaintiffs will make the Expert available for deposition reasonably promptly after completion of the expert report, at a mutually agreeable time and place, in full accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 195, entitled “Discovery Regarding Testifying Expert Witnesses.”

d. Expert Tom Given’s current résumé is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

4. Mr. Michael H. Bray, Licensed Real Estate Agent 4855 N. Mesa St., Suite 116 El Paso, Texas 79912 (915) 549-1770

Plaintiffs’ Third Amended List of Expert Witnesses and Designation of Testifying Experts Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, Jaime Gardea, and Synergy Construct LLC El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 3 of 7

AARB-1:077 Expert Michael H. Bray, Licensed Real Estate Agent with RC Properties, will testify concerning (i) the duties and obligations owed by a real estate agent and broker and at issue during a real estate purchase/sale transaction, including at issue in the transaction the subject of this lawsuit, and (ii) the report Bray prepared.

a. The documents, tangible things, models, or data compilations that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the Expert in anticipation of the Expert’s testimony are itemized in the Expert Bray’s Report dated October 3, 2023, attached hereto as Exhibit F.

b. As discovery is incomplete, Expert Bray has not yet prepared a final written expert report regarding the discoverable facts. Said expert report will be forthwith produced as soon as reasonably possible, after it has been completed and reduced to tangible form.

c. Plaintiffs will make the Expert available for deposition reasonably promptly after completion of the expert report, at a mutually agreeable time and place, in full accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 195, entitled “Discovery Regarding Testifying Expert Witnesses.”

d. Expert Michael H. Bray’s current résumé is attached hereto as Exhibit G.

i. Exhibit H - G-3ngineering Report. ii. Exhibit I - New Proposed Residence. iii. Exhibit J - Truss Engineering Drawings.

5. Michael R. Nevarez The Nevarez Law Firm, PC P.O. Box 12247 El Paso, Texas 79913 Telephone: (915) 225-2255 Facsimiles: (915) 845-3405

Expert Michael R. Nevarez will testify on the reasonableness and necessity of attorney fees and costs incurred herein, and as to the contract law principles applicable in this case, under (i) Texas statutory and regulatory laws, and (ii) the Constitution of the State of Texas.

The general substance of the Expert’s mental impressions and opinions and a brief summary of the basis for them are as follows:

a. Mr. Nevarez may testify and provide his expert opinions as to what reasonable and Plaintiffs’ Third Amended List of Expert Witnesses and Designation of Testifying Experts Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, Jaime Gardea, and Synergy Construct LLC El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 4 of 7

AARB-1:078 necessary attorneys fee and costs are for pre-trial, trial, appeal to the Court of Appeals, and appeal to the Supreme Court. Mr. Nevarez cannot formalize his opinions until a date closer to trial because the activity undertaken in this case, has not been fully determined, analyzed, developed, and/or implemented, which will directly affect his overall mental impressions and opinions. Mr. Nevarez will rely on his education, experience in the handling of legal matters in EI Paso County, Texas, his understanding of the issues in this case, his personal involvement in handling of this case; the applicable rules consistent with the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and the Texas Supreme Court's ruling in Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equipment Corporation, 945 S.W.2d 812, 818 (Tex. 1997), including, but not limited to:

i. The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill required to perform the legal service properly;

ii. The likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer;

iii. The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services;

iv. The amount involved and the results obtained;

v. The time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances;

vi. The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client;

vii. The experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and,

viii. Whether the fee is fixed or contingent on results obtained or uncertainty of collection before the legal services have been rendered.

As of the below date, the mental impressions and opinions held by Mr. Nevarez are that $300 per hour for the services of Plaintiffs’ attorney are reasonable and necessary in this case for pre-trial, post-trial, and appeal, and $350 per hour for trial work, based on the above- delineated factors under Texas law. It is anticipated at this preliminary stage that pretrial and trial preparation will require 100 to 150 hours; post trial 50 to 100 hours; appeal to 8th Court of Appeals 50 to 100 hours; petition to Texas Supreme Court 50 hours; and in the event petition is granted by the Texas Supreme Court, 100 hours.

b. Mr. Nevarez may testify and provide his expert opinions as to the contract law principles applicable in this case under (i) Texas statutory and regulatory laws, and (ii) the Constitution of the State of Texas, concerning Plaintiffs’ entitlement to payment of its claims, including all attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiffs’ Third Amended List of Expert Witnesses and Designation of Testifying Experts Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, Jaime Gardea, and Synergy Construct LLC El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 5 of 7

AARB-1:079 As of the below date, the mental impressions and opinions held by Mr. Nevarez are that, in accordance with contract law principles applicable in this case under the laws of the State of Texas, and the Constitution of the State of Texas, Plaintiffs are entitled to payment of all of its claims, and all attorney’s fees and costs.

c. The documents, tangible things, models, or data compilations that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the Expert in anticipation of the Expert’s testimony are as follows: The Pleadings in this case, all non-privileged case files, the discovery documents, and any photographs, video, and other tangible or intangible documents related to this case. In addition, as this case is ongoing and fee statements are continually being generated, Plaintiff swill also produce redacted copies of all fee invoices and statements upon request, at a reasonable time and place, as agreed to by the parties, and upon reasonable written notice.

d. As discovery is ongoing, Mr. Nevarez has not yet prepared a written report regarding the discoverable factual observations, tests, supporting data, calculations, photographs, and opinions, but said report will be forthwith produced as an Application for Attorney’s Fees and Costs soon as reasonably possible.

e. Plaintiffs will make the Expert available for deposition reasonably promptly after this designation, at a mutually agreeable time and place, in full accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 195, entitled “Discovery Regarding Testifying Expert Witnesses.”

f. Mr. Nevarez does not possess or maintain a current résumé and/or bibliography. However, Mr. Nevarez’ background may be found at: http://lawofficesmrn.com/michael-r-nevarez/.

November 10, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

THE NEVAREZ LAW FIRM, PC Attorneys and Counselors At Law 7362 Remcon Circle El Paso, Texas 79912 Telephone: (915) 225-2255 Facsimiles: (915) 845-3405 Email: MNevarez@LawOfficesMRN.com

/s/ Michael R. Nevarez MICHAEL R. NEVAREZ State of Texas Bar No. 14933400 Attorney for Plaintiffs Plaintiffs’ Third Amended List of Expert Witnesses and Designation of Testifying Experts Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, Jaime Gardea, and Synergy Construct LLC El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 6 of 7

AARB-1:080 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED LIST OF EXPERT WITNESSES AND DESIGNATION OF TESTIFYING EXPERTS, with all supporting attachments, exhibits, and affidavits thereto, if any, was served by regular first-class mail, postage prepaid, and/or by e-Filing via an Electronic Filing Service Provider, and/or via facsimile, and/or hand delivery, to the following parties in interest, on this November 10, 2023: ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT HEATHER HARMSTON: MARIO A. GONZALEZ 1522 Montana Avenue, Suite 100 El Paso, Texas 79902 Telephone: (915) 543-9802 Email: mario@gonzalezlawfirm.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS JAIME GARDEA and SYNERGY CONSTRUCT LLC: M. BLAKE DOWNEY and DESIREE M. DUARTE SCOTTHULSE PC One San Jacinto Plaza 201 E. Main Drive, Suite 1100 El Paso, Texas 79901 Telephone: (915) 533-2493 Emails: bdow@scotthulse.com; ddua@scotthulse.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT GC RENTALS: JAMES A. MARTINEZ HALA A. ABDEL-JABER MOUNCE, GREEN, MYERS, SAFI, PAXSON & GALATZAN P.O. Box 1977 El Paso, Texas 79999-1977 Telephone: (915) 532-2000 Facsimile: (915) 541-1597 Emails: martinezja@jmeplaw.com; Abdel-jaber@mgmsg.com

/s/ Michael R. Nevarez MICHAEL R. NEVAREZ

Plaintiffs’ Third Amended List of Expert Witnesses and Designation of Testifying Experts Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, Jaime Gardea, and Synergy Construct LLC El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 7 of 7

AARB-1:081 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Michael Nevarez Bar No. 14933400 MRN@MRN4Law.com Envelope ID: 81539749 Filing Code Description: Amended Filing Filing Description: Amended witness list Status as of 11/13/2023 10:01 AM MST

Virginia Munoz vmunoz@mgmsg.com 11/10/2023 8:33:57 PM SENT

M. BlakeDowney bdow@scotthulse.com 11/10/2023 8:33:57 PM SENT

Terry Silva tsilva@mgmsg.com 11/10/2023 8:33:57 PM SENT

michael nevarez mnevarez@lawofficesmrn.com 11/10/2023 8:33:57 PM SENT

Denise Macias paralegal-2@lawofficesmrn.com 11/10/2023 8:33:57 PM SENT

Loretta Mata lor.mata@epcounty.com 11/10/2023 8:33:57 PM SENT

Georgina Gallegos ggal@scotthulse.com 11/10/2023 8:33:57 PM SENT

Guy McGunegle gmcg@scotthulse.com 11/10/2023 8:33:57 PM SENT

Mario Gonzalez mario@gonzalezlawfirm.com 11/10/2023 8:33:57 PM SENT

Roberta Medina rmedina@rasberry.com 11/10/2023 8:33:57 PM SENT

James A.Martinez martinezja@jmeplaw.com 11/10/2023 8:33:57 PM SENT

James Martinez eservice@jmeplaw.com 11/10/2023 8:33:57 PM SENT

Hala Abdel-Jabar abdel-jaber@mgmsg.com 11/10/2023 8:33:57 PM SENT

AARB-1:082


  


  
 
   
    !"  #
 $ % &%  '!    ()* 
   +%% #, -% #!# !- . # % . #/

 0, 
#%122    %3  4 5 !- . #  
 ! "!#

 3  4 5  %67 #4 !6.  7- . #! 84 %

$ %
&'(
( 
  

& 
  & ,.. #/ . #  .# /  4%   . # 7 # ##%% % %#,  ! #  # %# .. #/ %#  -! /#  #4  /4,4 %9#,  . ## !/#, ! % 7 -# .# ##,# /4 !4 / %+33!#, ! #

, . # 45: ###, 4 ;<4 =!#,  <  
## "  ;<
"=',, 5 !4 %# ''' #  #  7?

, <
"6# %%! # 6 #   !#, <4  #,    4 # %%! . # 5/<
"   % . # +  . # %%   /#,  . # % %# #,# .  #?5  % 5 # #, # !#,  . # @, #,   /5 #, .# . #/# .  # /#, # . ! / # % 5  7 . # %'   . # % ,  . # 84 %##4  %   % 84. #/# 4# #/  ? .. / . !   7,#. ##. #  /..   ,  . # 84 %#  5? 5#  ? !4 , 7# %#  ,  . #  .# /%% 4 #,# % 5 % / ! #.#4  % A,' ? #,%  .    . #  %% ? !/ .   '#,  4!#4 B # #  #4#  ,  . # %  . / 45 #/' #5 #/!#, #4#4 # . # + #,47, ! #/4  /5 %%  % #, .##, . # ! #/C%  . #  %#,  . # 84 % #% #!/ .# # ,D%

- #, .##,  . #,  %# 5/, 9 7#, ...# 5  #, ! ', #,  ,# ' . # % #  . # % #.  #% ! # % .  #, ! % 7 #,  . % 7 #  #, 5%/!#,  .#! ,  . # 4#, 9#,  ! #5! %#  ##,#%?  / % #  /!! ##, . !   ! /#  . # ##4# ,D%# !   5.. #/. ! %5/#, <
"6# %%! # E  % !    4%  . 5 #/ #  %# '# . ## % 7 % # #   7 . # % 4 4#5  # # " # /5 .?% %5/#,  . #', #,  # # % %% ! # ,  . #  # 84 %#.#D  .,D #,  .#  ! % ! /?  #, 

 4 7# %5/#,  <  
## "  <
"  ((+4# F(((((2 ,##.$CC''' #  ## # 4 <
- (C 7 ! AARB-1:083 6 #  .# % /5  %  % ! ! #/4.7% ##, .. #/ *   ! #  ! # <  
## " 4 # "    7< 7 D %GD% !  5 '

G-6 <
<H-6
"--6+
"G-"+33H
FG+I6-J
-6
"-*G
6

)(
(&
 (
 $'
 
   *
+(,(

  

,/   4# .. #/% 7  %  :4 %5/% # #, , @,  % # / #5 ?%5   /#, % # :4  %% #, /5 ?% %#,47,#, % #!#  % .! # ,D%4  %#  
 . !4,,D%  4% $










 !4 #  7 ..  / # %  774 %!4 #4#.# # E*"-% ? ! #   .#  77 5#, 9#,  % #  A










 !4 #  7!4 #.# # +*"-% ? A










% /7   # ',   %   #4# # , 84  !! #/7 A










 !4 #  7 9!! ! #/! #4 4, 9   ! # %%  #  #  % !4 #   7 / .  % 4 .  7 5 % A










 !4 #  75   %   A










 ? . 75 #' 5 4#  #'/ %., A










 ..  / # %..   A










 ..  / # %% ! #? ! #/% ? A %










9! # 5 % 7 %74 % 7  4 #,# 4   ! %!,D%4,#,  #,  <  
## "  <
",%.# % 6# %%! #  84 7   % . ## .##,   %# ; ! #=', . !  7  . # ! 54/  !#, / 5   5 /% #   % ,   %#  / #,? ? # %54 % 7%   .# ##, # !#,  #4# !#, ,  #, / /,? 5 ;7 %!#,  %=5 4 #, /'  .  #.##, %.# !% .,5# 74, %#  @, #, <
"6# %%! # % # 84  . ##. ! %  .    . # <
" % #, .# # ! :4/.. #/ ! #, ,D%%%  % #, 6# %%! # #5 7 ! # 47,#' # #, #

 4 7# %5/#,  <  
## "  <
"  ((+4# F(((((2 ,##.$CC''' #  ## # 4 <
- (C 7 ! AARB-1:084 " ##! % ? . %5/<
"!4 5/#   ##      ! #, 54/ !#, 7,##,? #, ,  . # % % .?%  .#  4 .  ## 7#, 54/ ##   # #,  ##'#, . ! %#  #, #, 6# %%! #  #, <
" ##!  84  # %/ %#  ?  %5/  . # , %  # #,D% /% ! /% #! %   . #  .# !###, .# ##,  ##!#,  .4, !#, ,

 '(
 &$
$ 
-( (&
 '(
.

  -%

.
(
(
(( +' 
/+
+
( (
'%


0$

+
'' 
( 
'(
 (
 ( $(&
'
/
+
  
( 
$%
(
+
& 1
+
'' 


*$&(
 ( $(&
'
/
( 1

$


$  ( 
+
 

( 
 ( $(&
'
 ( 

+
 

( 
(( +'  %
 $&
(
( 1

(23
3 
451

6  


 ! "!#

 2

7"89#
 6

6

3:

!97

"!7
 8;3:

6
< 111%
=2 6
;3:
!98!9>
26
:? :
=@
: 
%
!9>8!979
66;:
=@

: 
%

=2
=6
; 
 
23::
2 6
6
!97

A1
1

"%>!"111 
599
6A<%
 =
"B!
6A<

 6

6

 4 7# %5/#,  <  
## "  <
"  ((+4# F(((((2 ,##.$CC''' #  ## # 4 <
- (C 7 ! AARB-1:085 < .#-% #!# $()* 

C6  
C 
6  
C 
 6  C < 

    6 
 2 1 $ $(&
 ' (1 36
   5 7%   #, !4 %# .. #5 !4 #  7 # % %%



D 
 
6:;
D

26 ; 2
6:
 < 

:E
 
  66
F 
6:
:66
 6
E
6
G
 6
E 
6 33
 6

1 * 
G
 
 E
6

@ 36
:6

;? 

 @
  %
E
6=3:
<:E
E
< 2
6 33
G
E 
6 
 : @
C
H
 
!I
E
< 2
6 33 %
6:
;@
 

@ 36
:6
 2
3@ %
266
E 
=:
; :E
< 

?
E::
3@
<
 
E 
6 

1 <
@ 
' :6
  .# , 7   M !  


  . #.. #5 !4 #  7 # % %C ##

1 <
 33
G
(   ##75        #?5   
!"  !     #?5    < 
@ 
<
<
63 <

6
; E 
 :
J
6= =
:E

: !

3 ;
@ 
<

<
63 < 

22  
23
<
@  
 
C
!
6A<


6A<1%
22 
<
 

1 /::6
 
G
D  
 


 @36
 
3836
<
 E::

@ 36
:6

 D6 
"DB
< 2
= 383


"D
< 2
6
 

;:3
 6%
D 
; ?
@ 
F6
 < 
6 :
J
F33
<
 =
E::%
63
@6

@ 36
:6%

:3
;? E::
   
<
<3 
=6
;;;%
@
;@
63=
<<
EE
J
= 
; 
6%
@6

E
= 
 E::%
3?

J
; ?
@ 
 < 

@ 36
:6%
D6 
E

<
6::
:
J
;?
E::
; :E
63
F33

1 :6
G
: 6
 
E::


:
@6

E
= 
:6 %

# . # ##

*1  6
 
G
D  
 3<6= 

2:

G
:
=: 6

@ 36
:6

 < 
%
 @36
 6

266

A3 
6:


J
 

=36
 
!%5 #
K
<
66
 

 < 
= 6=:

266
<6 
6 E
J
6 ?
:
J
62
:=
6= 6
= 3


3;;
6 :%
;
26 ; 2
6:
:66


266
6:
6 
J
62 %
266
6:
6 
J
/
 %
 < 
E =
6 6

@ 36
:6%
266
@ 6
J
:3 


G
;2
E= 
6
 
 6 %
?=
 E 6
;

;
: 
:6 
 %
 6
3
<
6A3
 ? 

@ 36
:6

+1 /E6
 
 

2 

266
6 6

@ 36
:6%
< 
; 2
EE
:= 6
; ? 

;
EE6

268: 
=6
< :
 
6
  
D:36@ :
<






















































B
<
7 L


 

  :: AARB-1:086 < .#-% #!# $()*  -N- . # % -N#- . # %  N#   # N ! /     6 
 2

1  E6
 
G
D  
 

M1  : =2 
 
=2 
=6
@ 
E=
E<<
; 


E
 <  #! . 

N1  = 6%
: 6%
 ?6%

  6
 E
 ?
J
;?
D


 

E=
6:
 2
3@
%
;?
6:;
J
26 ; 2
D
 < 
6
 
6:
E 
6 33 

1 &  (&
 ' (1 @
 

 :6
 ? , %! %&' #'  # C  . &  C? # . ? 4.7% 45.  77 %
3;:

J
 3
E 6

;36;

2:%
22 
: 6 
:  

1  =
 36%
  
 @ 6%

D3 6
#  4  4 5 ,4#' 7#,44#  
266
* 
   
D 
;?

< 
 : 6

 
J
62 %
6  6
 
;:3 %
* 
   
 : 6
A3 
E=
I
<
E

::
D 

?=

! 
  %
22 
: 6 
:  

1+( *%
. &(
( 
(
   *
 ' (1 + 
A32 
$ ! %C7.94 # !#. % $ !7  
<44%C+, ? 2 %1

1 :
A32 
$  !7 # %  62
6
;@

1 3
6 2%
=6 6%

. 6
  < 
@ 
<
<


6
6
 

.1 &$' *
 ' (1 /
3:
6 2

D3 6 &!    45 &!         $ !    2.  
266

A3 
;?
<:E
 @ 
J
D 
< 
<3 
=6
;;;

 @36
6 E
:

J
26 ;= 2
: ?

:3 

;6 3 
6
 
 

=6
< :
 
6
  
D:36@ :
<






















































>
<
7 L

 

  :: AARB-1:087 < .#-% #!# $()*  -N- . # % -N#- . # %  N#   # N ! /     6 
 2

1  6%
/6 6%

. 6
  ##

1 /
+ 
A32 
% $ !7   ! 7   <, C !    %1FE2
"2I 1)%
266
9
:;E
J
D 
E 6
6= 
: %
@

:< 2
J
 
:
   
G
@ 36
:6%
22 
: 6 
:32; %%
@ 
:<
6
<
E = 6
 D
!8!>
 6

1 + 8'66
= 
A32 
 

.1 (&(  ( 6=E6=
 @, .   . #. # 7

  3 6
6
6:
3 8 
6=3:
;
 66 

<:36=
E=
3 8

1 
/6
66
 %7   . #. # 7 @36:
 

; 2
 = 
< 2
 
; O :
:?


1 
D=36
. 
 266


A3 

:
6% 
<
 

1  6%
?86%

@ 6
 @, . 79#.7? # #N%7    . #. # 7C266

A3 
8
 @

266
63= 

J
6
:
E::
   

1 ' E@
@ 
 
  :

1  6=
2
 

*1 ' =:
D=36
. 6

= 2
+  6
 . # 7C ##

+1 * 

  6
 3!#)# C)H  . #. # 7C ##

1  ; ::

=2 6
 . # 7C ##

=6
< :
 
6
  
D:36@ :
<























































<
7 L

 

  :: AARB-1:088 < .#-% #!# $()*  -N- . # % -N#- . # %  N#   # N ! /     6 
 2

M1  
. 6
  ## #7 ? 
J
 :
6
:
   

63= 

 6 

266

6
@ 6

G
;2
6
 

.1  (&
 ' (1 &E

*  
 ?:
6 26
 

<3

%


< 
 
; 

1 E22
:6%
6%
+
3;6%

A32 
   !    #  

1 3;3:6
 

1 3
?
A32  % $ !  

1 *6
3:
6 26
  # &4#,' C ##

1  @
/
/ ::6
+ !   /  % %
' 
$  %(    

*1  @
E
66:
 
6 26
$  &!       

+1 /=: 8+36
.332
6 26
 

1 =
3:8
(: 6
 @, .  !7 #. # 7C ##

 2 ?6




















*  :
%
6  6
6
 %
 
;:3 %
 @36
<
2 
6 33

 @ :
62?

= 383%
22 
: 6 
:  %
22 
<
 

 < 
@ %
22 
6 33:

"DB
< 2
= 383


66 
E=
"D
< 2
6  

;:3
 

=6
< :
 
6
  
D:36@ :
<






















































7
<
7 L

 

  :: AARB-1:089 RESUME: JOHN ESTRADA

1963-1968 FRAMER

YARBROUGH CONSTRUCTION / ROGER SHULTZ

1968 /1969 - JANUARY 1973 USMC

1973 - 1976 UTEP / BIOLOGY MAJOR

1978 ICX TRANSPORTAION / UPS / 2002 CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS

2004 - 2022 PROFESSIONAL MASTER COMMERCIAL / RESIDENTIAL INSPECTOR

AARB-1:090  

 ǡ 

:ƵŶĞϮϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ

ƚƚŶ͗Dƌ͘DŝĐŚĂĞůEĞǀĂƌĞnj dŚĞEĞǀĂƌĞnj>Ăǁ&ŝƌŵ͕W W͘K͘ŽdžϭϮϮϰϳ ůWĂƐŽ͕dyϳϵϵϭϯ  Z͗ džĞĐƵƚŝǀĞ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJʹWƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌLJ&ŝŶĚŝŶŐƐ ϵϯϮϴDĐ&ĂůůƌŝǀĞ͕ůWĂƐŽdĞdžĂƐ

ĞĂƌDƌ͘EĞǀĂƌĞnj͗

WĞƌLJŽƵƌ:ƵŶĞϮϱ͕ϮϬϮϭƌĞƋƵĞƐƚ͕'͕>>ĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚĂ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚĂƚƚŚĞZŽĚƌŝŐƵĞnj ZĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂƚϵϯϮϴDĐ&ĂůůƌŝǀĞŝŶůWĂƐŽ͕dy͘Dƌ͘:ĂŝŵĞ'ĂůůŽ͕W͕͘͘D͕WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůŶŐŝŶĞĞƌ ;ŝǀŝůͬ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůͿ͕ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĞĚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞǀŝƐŝƚŽŶ:ƵŶĞϮϴ͕ϮϬϮϭ͘'ǁĂƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚƚŽĂƐƐĞƐƐƚŚĞƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂů ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞĂŶĚĂƐƐĞƐƐŝĨŝƚŵĞƚƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐŽĚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘  dŚŝƐƌĞƉŽƌƚŝƐŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƚŽďĞĂŶdžĞĐƵƚŝǀĞ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJĂŶĚŵĂLJŶŽƚƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂůůƚŚĞĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐŶŽƚĞĚ͘WůĞĂƐĞŶŽƚĞ ƚŚĂƚŽƵƌŽďƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂƌĞůŝŵŝƚĞĚƚŽĂƐŝŶŐůĞƐŝƚĞǀŝƐŝƚŽĨƌĞĂĚŝůLJǀŝƐŝďůĞĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚĚŝĚŶŽƚ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƚĞƐƚŝŶŐŽƌĚĞƐƚƌƵĐƚŝǀĞƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐ͘KƚŚĞƌƐŚĂĚĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĚƌLJǁĂůůĐƵƚŽƵƚƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞƌŝŽƌ ŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͘'ƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚƚŚĞĨƌĂŵŝŶŐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐƌĞĂĚŝůLJĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞĚƌLJǁĂůůĐƵƚŽƵƚƐ͘

Assignment 'ǁĂƐĐŽŶƚĂĐƚĞĚďLJDƌ͘DŝĐŚĂĞůEĞǀĂƌĞnj͕ƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚŝŶŐDƌ͘ůĚŽŶZŽĚƌŝŐƵĞnj͕ŽŶ:ƵŶĞϮϱ͕ϮϬϮϭ͕ƚŽĐŽŶĚƵĐƚ ĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͘Dƌ͘EĞǀĂƌĞnjƐƚĂƚĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌƐǁĞƌĞ ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂƐŶŽƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐŽĚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚƚŚĞ ƉĞƌŵŝƚƚĞĚĚĞƐŝŐŶĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐ͘

Background Information Dƌ͘:ĂŝŵĞ'ĂůůŽ͕W͕ĨŽƌŵĞƌůLJƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚŝŶŐ'ͲϯŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ͕>>͕ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĂŶŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐZĞƉŽƌƚŝŶƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƚŽ ƚŚĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽŶƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϭϳ͘ƚƚŚĞƚŝŵĞ͕ƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJǁĂƐŐƵƚƚĞĚĂŶĚƉĂƌƚŝĂůůLJĚĞŵŽůŝƐŚĞĚĂƐĂ ƌĞƐƵůƚŽĨĂĨŝƌĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂƚŝŶŐĂƚƚŚĞĐŚŝŵŶĞLJ͘dŚĞĐŽŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶƐĂŶĚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϭϳ ƌĞƉŽƌƚĂƌĞůŝƐƚĞĚďĞůŽǁ͗ x ůůĐŚĂƌƌĞĚůƵŵďĞƌĂŶĚƚŚĞĂĚũŽŝŶŝŶŐŵĞŵďĞƌ;ƐͿŽŶĞĂĐŚƐŝĚĞŶŽƚĞdžŚŝďŝƚŝŶŐĚĂŵĂŐĞƐŚĂůůďĞƌĞŵŽǀĞĚ ĂŶĚƌĞƉůĂĐĞĚ͖ x ŶLJĚŽŽƌƐ͕ǁŝŶĚŽǁƐ͕ŽƌĨƌĂŵĞƐĞdžŚŝďŝƚŝŶŐĚŝƐůŽĚŐĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ǁĂƚĞƌŽƌĨŝƌĞĚĂŵĂŐĞƐŚĂůůďĞƌĞŵŽǀĞĚĂŶĚ ƌĞƉůĂĐĞĚ͖ x dŚĞĨůŽŽƌƐůĂďĚĂŵĂŐĞǁĂƐĐŽƐŵĞƚŝĐĂŶĚŵĂLJďĞƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶƉůĂĐĞĨŽƌĂŶŝŶͲŬŝŶĚƐŝŶŐůĞƐƚŽƌLJ͕ ĐŽŶǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂů͕ǁŽŽĚĨƌĂŵĞƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͖ x DŽĚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐƚŽƚŚĞůŽĂĚďĞĂƌŝŶŐǁĂůůƐŽƌƚŚĞƵƐĞŽĨŽƚŚĞƌĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐǁŝůůƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĨƵƌƚŚĞƌ ĞǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶ͖ĂŶĚ x dŚĞƌĞŵŽǀĂů͕ƌĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƌĞƉĂŝƌĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐƐŚĂůůďĞĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞŽǀĞƌƐŝŐŚƚŽĨĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂů ĞŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŽƌĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂů͘  ϴϬϭDLJƌƚůĞǀĞ^ƵŝƚĞϭϬϭͮůWĂƐŽ͕dyϳϵϵϬϭ ;ϵϭϱͿϮϮϵͲϲϳϰϮͮ:ĂŝŵĞ'ĂůůŽWΛŐŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵ  AARB-1:091 ϵϯϮϴDĐ&ĂůůƌŝǀĞ͕ůWĂƐŽ͕dy :ƵŶĞϮϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ WĂŐĞϮ

'ŽƌDƌ͘'ĂůůŽ͕ǁĞƌĞŶŽƚŝŶǀŽůǀĞĚŝŶƐƵďƐĞƋƵĞŶƚƌĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚ͕ƉĞƌŵŝƚƚŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚƌĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĂƚĂŶ ƵŶĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚƚŝŵĞďLJŽƚŚĞƌƉĂƌƚŝĞƐƐŽŵĞƚŝŵĞĂĨƚĞƌƚŚĞƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϭϳ'ͲϯŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐǁĞƌĞ ŝƐƐƵĞĚ͘  Observations dŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐŝƐĂƐƵŵŵĂƌLJŽĨƚŚĞĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐŽďƐĞƌǀĞĚĚƵƌŝŶŐŽƵƌƐŝƚĞǀŝƐŝƚƚŽŝŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚĞƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ ĂƚƚŚĞZŽĚƌŝŐƵĞnjƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞ͗ x dŚĞǁĂůůĨƌĂŵŝŶŐǁĂƐŶŽƚĐŽŶǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚŶŽƚŝŶĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐŽĚĞĂŶĚ ŝŶĚƵƐƚƌLJƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘dŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůĞŝŐŚƚͲĨŽŽƚͲƚĂůů͕ϮdžϰƐƚƵĚĨƌĂŵĞĚǁĂůůƐǁĞƌĞƌĂŝƐĞĚŽǀĞƌƚǁŽĨĞĞƚŝŶŚĞŝŐŚƚ ďLJĂĚĚŝŶŐϮdžϰƐƚƵĚĨƌĂŵŝŶŐĂƚϭϲͲŝŶĐŚƐƉĂĐŝŶŐƐ͘dŚĞĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞĨƌĂŵŝŶŐĞdžŚŝďŝƚĞĚŐĂƉƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶ ŵĞŵďĞƌƐ͕ƐƉůŝƚƐĂŶĚůĂĐŬĞĚƉƌŽƉĞƌĂŶĐŚŽƌŝŶŐĂŶĚƐƚƌĂƉƐ͘WĞƌƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚǀĞƌƐŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů ƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽĚĞ;/Ϳ͕ĂĚŽƉƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨůWĂƐŽ͕ǁĂůůƐŚŝŐŚĞƌƚŚĂŶƚĞŶĨĞĞƚ͕ĂƐŽďƐĞƌǀĞĚĂƚƚŚĞ ZŽĚƌŝŐƵĞnjƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞ͕ŵƵƐƚďĞĞŶŐŝŶĞĞƌĞĚƚŽƌĞƐŝƐƚƚŚĞĞdžƉĞĐƚĞĚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞůŽĂĚƐ͘dŚĞĨƌĂŵĞĚůŽĂĚͲďĞĂƌŝŶŐ ǁĂůůƐĂƚƚŚĞZŽĚƌŝŐƵĞnjƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞǁĞƌĞŶŽƚĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽƐƵƐƚĂŝŶƚŚĞůŽĂĚŝŶŐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƉĞƌƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐŽĚĞ͖ x ŚĂƌƌĞĚĨƌĂŵŝŶŐŵĞŵďĞƌƐǁĞƌĞŽďƐĞƌǀĞĚĂƚƚŚĞZŽĚƌŝŐƵĞnjƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞ͘&ŝƌĞĞǀĞŶƚƐƚLJƉŝĐĂůůLJƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶƚŚĞ ĐŚĂƌƌŝŶŐŽĨǁŽŽĚŵĞŵďĞƌƐ͘dŚĞĐŚĂƌƌĞĚǁŽŽĚŵĞŵďĞƌƐĞdžŚŝďŝƚƌĞĚƵĐĞĚĐƌŽƐƐͲƐĞĐƚŝŽŶĂůĂƌĞĂƐĂŶĚ ĚĂŵĂŐĞƚŽƚŚĞǁŽŽĚĨŝďĞƌƐƌĞĚƵĐŝŶŐƚŚĞŝƌůŽĂĚͲďĞĂƌŝŶŐĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ͘&ŽƌƚŚŝƐƌĞĂƐŽŶ͕ƚŚĞϮϬϭϳĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚĂůůĐŚĂƌƌĞĚŵĞŵďĞƌƐĂŶĚƚŚĞĂĚũŽŝŶŝŶŐŵĞŵďĞƌŶŽƚĞdžŚŝďŝƚŝŶŐĨŝƌĞĚĂŵĂŐĞďĞƌĞŵŽǀĞĚ ĂŶĚƌĞƉůĂĐĞĚŝŶŬŝŶĚ͖ x dŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞǁĂƐŶŽƚƌĞƉůĂĐĞĚŝŶŬŝŶĚ͖ŵĂŝŶůLJ͕ůŽĂĚͲďĞĂƌŝŶŐǁĂůůƐǁĞƌĞƌĂŝƐĞĚƚŽŽǀĞƌƚĞŶĨĞĞƚ ŝŶŚĞŝŐŚƚ͕ĂƌŽŽŵĂŶĚĂƌĞĂƌƉŽƌĐŚǁĞƌĞĂĚĚĞĚ͘dŚĞŵŽĚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐǁĂƌƌĂŶƚĞĚƚŚĞƌĞͲĞǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ ĨŽƵŶĚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŝƚƐůŽĂĚͲďĞĂƌŝŶŐĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ͖ĂŶĚ x KƚŚĞƌŽĚĞǀŝŽůĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚǁŽƌŬŵĂŶƐŚŝƉŝƐƐƵĞƐƐƵĐŚĂƐƵŶƚĞĚͬƵŶĨůĂƐŚĞĚƌŽŽĨƉĞŶĞƚƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ƌŽŽĨ ƉĞŶĞƚƌĂƚŝŽŶƐůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶϭϮŝŶĐŚĞƐĨƌŽŵǀĂůůĞLJƐͬƌŝĚŐĞƐ͕ĂĚĞĨŝĐŝĞŶƚůLJƐĞĂůĞĚĐŚŝŵŶĞLJĐĂƉ͕ŝŶĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞ ĨŽŽƚŝŶŐƐ͕ƉŽŽƌůLJĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚĨƌĂŵŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚƌĂĨƚĞƌĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ͕ĂŶĚĚĞĨŝĐŝĞŶƚůLJŝŶƐƚĂůůĞĚƐƚƵĐĐŽĐůĂĚĚŝŶŐ ǁĞƌĞŽďƐĞƌǀĞĚďLJ'͘  Conclusions and Recommendations dŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐŽĚĞƐƐƉĞĐŝĨLJƚŚĞŵŝŶŝŵƵŵƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐƚŽƐĂĨĞŐƵĂƌĚƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽĐĐƵƉĂŶƚƐΖŚĞĂůƚŚ͕ƐĂĨĞƚLJ͕ĂŶĚ ǁĞůĨĂƌĞ͘dŚĞZŽĚƌŝŐƵĞnjƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞŝƐŶŽƚŝŶĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŵŝŶŝŵƵŵƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐŽĚĞĂŶĚ͕ĂƐĂƌĞƐƵůƚ͕ƐŚĂůůďĞĚĞĞŵĞĚƵŶŝŶŚĂďŝƚĂďůĞƵŶƚŝůĂƚŚŽƌŽƵŐŚĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚĐĂŶďĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚďLJ ĂƋƵĂůŝĨŝĞĚƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚŝƚƐĚĞĨŝĐŝĞŶĐŝĞƐƌĞŵĞĚŝĂƚĞĚŽƌƌĞŵŽǀĞĚĂŶĚƌĞƉůĂĐĞĚ͘  Limitations dŚĞĐŽŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶƐ͕ĂŶĂůLJƐĞƐ͕ĂŶĚŽƉŝŶŝŽŶƐĞdžƉƌĞƐƐĞĚŚĞƌĞŝŶŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶĂƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůĞĚĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ ƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůĐĞƌƚĂŝŶƚLJ͘dŚĞLJĂƌĞďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞƌĞƐƵůƚƐĂŶĚŝŶƚĞƌƉƌĞƚĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞƚĞƐƚŝŶŐĂŶĚͬŽƌĚĂƚĂĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶ ĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĞĚĂƚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͕ƚŚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƚŽ'ĂƚƚŚĞƚŝŵĞƚŚĞƌĞƉŽƌƚǁĂƐŝƐƐƵĞĚ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞ ĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐ͕ŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞ͕ƐŬŝůů͕ĂŶĚĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞŽĨƚŚĞĂƵƚŚŽƌĂŶĚͬŽƌůŝĐĞŶƐĞĚƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůŶŽƚĞĚ͘  dŚĞĐŽŶƚĞŶƚƐŽĨƚŚŝƐƌĞƉŽƌƚĂƌĞĐŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚŝĂů͕ĂƌĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞƵƐĞŽĨdŚĞEĞǀĂƌĞnj>Ăǁ&ŝƌŵĂŶĚŝƚƐ ƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞƐŽƌĐůŝĞŶƚƐ͕ĂŶĚŵĂLJĂůƐŽďĞƉƌŝǀŝůĞŐĞĚŽƌŽƚŚĞƌǁŝƐĞƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚďLJǁŽƌŬƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽƌ ŽƚŚĞƌůĞŐĂůƌƵůĞƐ͘'ĂƐƐƵŵĞƐŶŽůŝĂďŝůŝƚLJĨŽƌƚŚĞŵŝƐƵƐĞŽĨƚŚŝƐŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶďLJŽƚŚĞƌƐĂŶĚƌĞƐĞƌǀĞƐƚŚĞƌŝŐŚƚ ƚŽƵƉĚĂƚĞƚŚŝƐƌĞƉŽƌƚƐŚŽƵůĚĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶďĞĐŽŵĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ͘

 ϴϬϭDLJƌƚůĞǀĞ^ƵŝƚĞϭϬϭͮůWĂƐŽ͕dyϳϵϵϬϭ ;ϵϭϱͿϮϮϵͲϲϳϰϮͮ:ĂŝŵĞ'ĂůůŽWΛŐŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵ  AARB-1:092 ϵϯϮϴDĐ&ĂůůƌŝǀĞ͕ůWĂƐŽ͕dy :ƵŶĞϮϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ WĂŐĞϯ

dŚŝƐĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚŚĂƐďĞĞŶƐŝŐŶĞĚĂŶĚƐĞĂůĞĚŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞƐƚĂƚĞƐƚĂƚƵƚĞƐ͘/ĨŶŽƚƐŝŐŶĞĚĂŶĚƐĞĂůĞĚ ďLJƚŚĞůŝĐĞŶƐĞĚƉƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂů;ƐͿŶĂŵĞĚĂŶĚƐŚŽǁŶĂƐŝƚƐĂƵƚŚŽƌ;ƐͿ͕ƚŚĞŽďƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ĐŽŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶƐ͕ĂŶĚŽƉŝŶŝŽŶƐ ĐĂŶŶŽƚďĞƌĞůŝĞĚƵƉŽŶ͖ĂƐƐƵĐŚ͕ƚŚĞĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚŚĂƐďĞĞŶƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĨŽƌŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶƉƵƌƉŽƐĞƐŽŶůLJ͘dŚŝƐƌĞƉŽƌƚǁĂƐ ƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůůLJƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚ'͛ƐƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞ͘  '͕>>ĂƉƉƌĞĐŝĂƚĞƐƚŚŝƐŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJƚŽďĞŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƚŽLJŽƵ͘/ĨǁĞĐĂŶďĞŽĨĨƵƌƚŚĞƌĂƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞŝŶƚŚŝƐŽƌŽƚŚĞƌ ŵĂƚƚĞƌƐ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞĚŽŶŽƚŚĞƐŝƚĂƚĞƚŽĐŽŶƚĂĐƚƵƐ͘  ^ŝŶĐĞƌĞůLJ͕ '͕>>     :ĂŝŵĞ'ĂůůŽ͕W͕D

dyW&ͲϮϭϲϴϲ



 ϴϬϭDLJƌƚůĞǀĞ^ƵŝƚĞϭϬϭͮůWĂƐŽ͕dyϳϵϵϬϭ ;ϵϭϱͿϮϮϵͲϲϳϰϮͮ:ĂŝŵĞ'ĂůůŽWΛŐŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵ  AARB-1:093 Jaime Gallo, PE, CCM Principal Engineer (Civil/Structural) JaimeGalloPE@gmail.com (915) 346-5111

Professional Summary Mr. Gallo is a Principal Civil/Structural Engineer located in El Paso, Texas. He serves as a forensic Civil/Structural engineer and is responsible for engineering projects requiring determination of the cause, origin, and extent/severity of damage to buildings and structures. Mr. Gallo’s work is primarily focused on projects requiring evaluation of structural damage from various causes including wind due to hurricanes, structural settlement conditions, and construction activities. Mr. Gallo is also involved in litigation support of our clients, providing expert evaluations. Mr. Gallo has been responsible for various types of structural investigations including evaluating damage from hurricanes, foundation issues, automobile impacts, hail storms, elevated wind forces and rainfall, ice and snow events, drainage issues, plumbing and construction techniques and methods. Mr. Gallo has extensive experience in forensic investigations, design and construction of residential and commercial structures. Projects include schools, office complexes, multi-story structures, infrastructure, and commercial buildings. Clients have included private and institutional owners, government entities, insurance companies and plaintiff attorneys. Mr. Gallo has been a practicing licensed professional engineer since 2010. He has held civil engineering positions involving residential and commercial site design and development, design and construction of residential, commercial and civil infrastructure projects. These positions have ranged in responsibility from entry to supervisory and management levels. As project engineer, Mr. Gallo was responsible for production of construction documents and plans, permitting documents and submittals, project coordination and construction/operation/maintenance administration. As a certified construction manager, Mr. Gallo has been responsible overseeing the owner’s best interest and directing residential, commercial and civil infrastructure construction projects from conception to completion.

Education May 2002 Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering University of Texas, El Paso, Texas

History > Principal Engineer/Owner GECCA (formerly G-3ngineering), El Paso, Texas, 2010 – Present > Infrastructure Lead for ECM International, Inc., El Paso, Texas, 2013 – Present > Project Manager for JD Abrams, LP, Austin, Texas, 1998 – 2012

AARB-1:094 Relevant Professional Licenses Texas – Professional Engineer, License Number: 107316 Florida – Professional Engineer, License Number: 84713 Colorado – Professional Engineer, License Number: 54800 North Carolina – Professional Engineer, License Number: 047715 New Mexico – Professional Engineer, License Number: 22749 National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveyors (NCEES) Model Law Engineer (MLE) Record Number: 12-514-65 Certified Construction Manager (CCM), License Number: 6462

Professional Organizations / Affiliations American Society of Civil Engineers National Chapter, Professional Member National Society of Professional Engineers, Professional Member Construction Managers Association of America, Professional Member Project Management Institute, Professional Member

Areas of Specialization > Structural Forensic Investigations > Foundation/Settlement Evaluations > Wind Force/Storm Surge/Wave Action/Flooding Damage Assessments > Vibration Damage Assessments > Roof Covering Damage Assessments > Litigation Support Services > Design and Construction

Representative Project Experience Responsible for the investigation and evaluation of structural issues related to various types of projects. Mr. Gallo has investigated over 900 projects in the civil/structural field.

AARB-1:095 Given CPA, PC 6006 N Mesa St, Suite 328 El Paso, Texas 79912 Office: (915) 585-1900 Cell: (915)276-3225 Email: given@givencpa.com

More than 25 years of experience in public and industry accounting. • CPA • CVA

RecentProfessional Experience

2005 - Present Given CPA, PC El Paso, Texas

• Owned and operated my CPA firm specializing in small business accounting and tax services and business valuations. • Assist business owners with sale of their business-merger and acquisitions specialist.

Membership Texas Society of CPA’s

National Association of Certified Valuators and Analysts

Education

Masters of Business Administration ( MBA) Finance/Accounting University of Pennsylvania Wharton Graduate School

Bachelors of Business Administration (BBA) Finance/Economics with honors University of Texas at Austin

AARB-1:096 Michael H. Bray 4866 N. Mesa Street, Suite 116 El Paso, Texas 79912 (915) 549-1770

October 3, 2023

Michael R. Nevarez The Nevarez Law Firm, PC 7362 Remcon Circle El Paso, TX 79912

RE: 9328 McFall Drive, El Paso Texas

Dear Mr. Nevarez:

This report and the testimony I will provide is based on my 35 years' experience as a licensed real estate agent, concerning the duties and obligations owed by a real estate agent and broker and at issue during a real estate purchase/sale transaction, including at issue in the transaction the subject of this lawsuit. I may testify concerning the ethical and contractual obligations and duties owed by a real estate agent and broker to their clients and customers, including the disclosure of material information as to the transaction or property.

As a former member of the Broker/Lawyer Committee at the Texas Real Estate Commission, I may testify to the proper use of contract forms, to include required disclosures. As a former member of the Professional Standards Committee of the Texas Association of REALTORS and a Certified Instructor for licensing and continuing education courses, I may testify to potential violations of the REALTORS Code of Ethics and the Texas Real Estate Commission Canons of Professional Ethics.

I will testify that a broker/agent has minimum legal and contractual duties to inform the customer of any material information about the transaction received by broker/agent, and must treat all parties to a real estate transaction honestly and fairly. I will testify that a broker/agent may not have a duty to discover material facts to a property, but do have a duty to disclose any known material facts.

I will testify that GC Rentals and Management LLC d/b/a Realty One Group Mendez Burk, Gabriel Mendez as Broker, and Megan Harris, purportedly the Licensed Supervisor of Listing Associate, had legal, contractual and fiduciary duties to inform all "PARTIES" of information material to the transaction or property known to Defendants (including disclosed by the seller or seller's agent).

I will testify the duties and obligations arise from i) the ethical duties required of

AARB-1:097 broker/agents in Texas ii) the facts surrounding the transaction to include the MLS listing provided Realty One Group Mendez Burk, iii) the failure to list, and provide copies of an Engineering Report completed by G-3ngineering, LLC, and the failure to follow the recommendations during the repairs which are known material facts.

I will testify that despite knowledge of this material information, they breached their duties and obligations to Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez to inform them of this information, material to the transaction, such that Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez would be induced to do more investigation of any hidden or concealed structural defects, and 2) stating on the Seller's Disclosure Notice that the structure was "demoed" and "rebuilt" with "every phase cleared by the city inspector, fire marshal and city engineer", thereby setting the expectation that all work was done in accordance with applicable codes and building practices. Mr. Bray will testify Defendants actions breach these obligations and duties, whether by commission, omission, or willful omission.

Sincerely,

AARB-1:098 Michael H. Bray Qualifications

Michael H. Bray, ABR, AHWD, CPE, CSP, eCertified, GRI, TAHS, Fine Homes Specialist (915) 549-1770 Mhbray1@gmail.com RC Properties 4855 N. Mesa St., Suite 116 El Paso, TX 79912

1987-Present Texas Real Estate Salesman license #0385615

June 2023 – present, Commissioner – Regional Renewable Energy Advisory Commission,

November 2021 – present, State Bar of Texas, Grievance Committee

2010 Texas REALTOR® Hero (For Statewide work on Affordable Housing)

2003-2009 Texas Real Estate Commission Broker/Lawyer Committee

2003-2019 Presiding Officer, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, Manufactured Housing Board (Gubernatorial Appointment)

2003-Present Vice President, El Paso Housing Finance Corporation

2007-2021 Chair, Building and Standards Commission, City of El Paso

2010-2014 Member, Zoning Boards of Adjustments, City of El Paso

2010 - 2016 El Paso Health Facilities Development Corporation 2001 President, Greater El Paso Association of REALTORS®

1999, 2000 Non-Attorney Mediator of the Year, El Paso Bar Association

1993-2003, 2014-2015 Advisory to the Board, El Paso Builders Association

1994-Present Mediation Officer, Greater El Paso Association of REALTORS®

Michael H. Bray Qualifications Page 1

AARB-1:099 1994-Present Mediation Officer, Texas Association of REALTORS®

2005-2007 Director, Texas Association of REALTORS®

2007-2009 Regional Vice President, Texas Association of REALTORS®

2007-2009 Executive Committee, Texas Association of REALTORS®

2010-2013 Director, National Association of REALTORS®

2005 Chair, Texas Association of REALTORS® Housing Initiatives Committee

1996-Present Legislative Liaison, Texas Association of REALTORS®

1996-Present Governmental Affairs Committee, Texas Association of REALTORS®

1996-Present Professional Standards Committee, Texas Association of REALTORS®

2008-2011 Director, Frontera Land Alliance

Member, Architectural Preservation Committee, Texas Trost Society

Instructor, Academy of Real Estate, El Paso (Pre-licensing and Continuing Education), 25+ yrs.

Faculty Instructor, Texas REALTORS® University, Austin

Instructor, National Association of REALTORS®, At Home With Diversity

(Former) Vice President, Habitat for Humanity of El Paso

(Former) Vice President, Camino Real Association of Mediators

(Former) Board Member, Fannie Mae Border Regional Alliance

(Former) Board Member, Coalition for the Homeless

(Former) Public Relations Officer, Paso Del Norte Chapter of American MENSA

Michael H. Bray Qualifications Page 2

AARB-1:100 Engineering Report

9328 MC Fall Dr.

El Paso, TX 79925

Prepared for

Ms. Carol Ahearn 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

August 9, 2017

Prepared by G-3ngineering, LLC 1901 Arizona, Suite 205 El Paso, TX 79902 (915) 209-5141 info@g-3ng.com TBPE F-14940

AARB-1:101 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

Contents 1.0 Assignment........................................................................................................................................ 2 2.0 Background Information ................................................................................................................... 2 3.0 Property Description ......................................................................................................................... 2 4.0 Observations ..................................................................................................................................... 2 5.0 Discussion.......................................................................................................................................... 4 6.0 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 4 7.0 Qualifications .................................................................................................................................... 5 8.0 Closing ............................................................................................................................................... 6 9.0 References ........................................................................................................................................ 7 10.0 Attachment A: Figures & Photographs ............................................................................................. 8 11.0 Attachment B: Fire marshal’s report. ............................................................................................... 9

August 9, 2016 AARB-1:102 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

RE: Engineering Report 143 CIELO VISTA PARK LOT 16 (10219 SQ FT) 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

As requested, G‐3ngineering, LLC (G‐3) has completed an engineering assessment investigation at the subject property located at 9328 MC Fall Dr. in El Paso, Texas. Our findings, analysis, and conclusions are included herein.

This report contains a discussion of the information gathered during the investigation and an analysis and conclusions with respect to the condition of the subject site at the time of G‐3’s inspection. The conclusions contained herein are based on information available to date.

This written report is the response to your request for an engineering investigation at the property and should be read in full.

Page 1 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:103 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

1.0 Assignment G‐3ngineering was contact by Mr. Miguel Chacon, representing the Owner, on July 13, 2017 to conduct an engineering assessment at the subject property (Figure 1). Mr. Jaime Gallo, PE (G‐3) examined the site on July 14, 2017.

Mr. Chacon, Mr. Salvador Hernandez, Ms. Ahearn, and an unidentified gentleman were on premises during the examinations. The scope of this assignment was to perform a visual engineering assessment of building damage resulting from a fire event on an earlier date.

2.0 Background Information Mr. Chacon indicated a recent house fire damaged the structure and the owner was evaluating the extent of the rebuilding effort. The owner does not recall experiencing major water or sewer line breaks or other major repairs or structural modifications to the building. The construction (record) drawings were not available for review. As of the time of this writing, the fire marshal’s report has been requested but not received.

G‐3’s scope of work was to perform a visual inspection and provide guidance to determine the extent of the remaining damage, structural components or members requiring replacement, and visual evaluation of the foundation.

3.0 Property Description The subject property is approximately 2,500 square foot, single story residential home, conventional wood frame construction bearing on a slab on grade foundation, and a combination of wood siding and brick veneer exterior. It is unknown if the foundation is post tensioned or conventional reinforcement. Public records fail to indicate when the home was constructed. By observation the construction & style is approximated to be pre‐1980. The construction is typical of the area and time period for its size and function. The property is bounded by residential properties to the north and east; Mondwood Drive to the South & accessed via MC Fall Drive to the east (Figure 2).

The building rests on a 0.235 acre lot in a fully developed residential subdivision draining towards MC Fall Dr. Photograph No. 1 presents a street view of the property as of July 2017. A floor plan sketch is presented by Figure 3.

4.0 Observations Observations were photographed to document damage or distress and relevant conditions at the subject property on the date of the site visit. Not all damage or distress that may be present was necessarily observed or photographed; however, the selected photographs provide an indication of their types, severity, and distribution. They may also document unusual or contributing conditions that may exist. At the time of G‐3’s visit, the roof structure had been demolished and most walls had been

Page 2 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:104 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

stripped of the interior sheathing and insulation. Partial cleaning of the premises & emptying of all furniture & belongings had been performed by others.

Photographs taken to document our findings and observations are presented throughout this report. The following observations were noted during the visual site examinations on July 14, 2017. Figure 3 presents the approximate location of the photographs presented. The labels are indicated by a leader and box, with a number corresponding to the photograph number such as:

G‐3’s observations initiated at the NE interior corner, Garage, and continued counterclockwise throughout the inside. A walk around the exterior following the same basic pattern was also documented. Below is a listing of the observed conditions; Photograph Numbers are enclosed in brackets [#]:

[2] The exterior load bearing stud wall exhibits some localized charring of stud members and the top plate.

[3] The second window’s framing along the exterior north wall is significantly charred. The exterior wall and its framing appear in sound condition.

[4] The remaining NW corner room’s exterior walls exhibit minimal damage. Some floor covering is missing but the underlying foundation does not exhibit significant fractures.

[5] The chimney’s smoke damage initiates at the roof line. No significant fire or structural damage is evident below the roof line.

[6] Remaining joists in the SW corner room are charred exhibiting some loss of cross‐section.

[7] & [8] The living area interior load bearing walls and joist exhibit minimal damage. The floor covering sustained cosmetic damage. Exposed floor areas do not exhibit excessive fractures, spalling or other stress.

[9] Interior load bearing wall exhibits minimal damage & floor covering incomplete.

[10] The interior view looking north presents some damage to the window header and top plate.

The exterior walls were visually inspected for fractures or other indication of settlement and stresses.

[11] The exterior north wall brick veneer exhibits normal wear and without signs of movement or settlement of the foundation.

[12], [13], & [14] Exterior west wall appeared normal without significant fractures.

[15] The exterior south wall’s brick veneer is in normal condition as expected for its age.

Page 3 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:105 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

5.0 Discussion The visual determination of whether structural fire damage to wood members has occurred to the extent that removal and replacement are required is generally associated with the presence of charring to such wood members1. All members exhibiting charring will result in a reduced cross‐section and thus lowered load carrying capacity. Thus, any charred wood member and the additional adjacent sound, undamaged member shall be removed and replaced.

Additionally, darkened wood members will exhibit reduced loading capacities2. Darkening of wood members typically occurs at temperatures of about 392⁰F to 572⁰F. Ignition occurs at a temperature of about 450⁰F3. The darkened wood members shall be carefully evaluated and considered for removal & replacement.

Bitumen impregnated fiber board has an exterior and an interior face. Both the exterior face & interior faces of the employed fiberboard appears to have received the bitumen treatment and thus resulting in some water resistance. When attached to the structure per the manufacturer recommendations it acts as a sheathing mechanism to prevent the intrusion of moisture into the framing structure and the building. It also provides some consequential insulating qualities. A layer of brick veneer, wood siding or similar is then fastened to complete the building envelope.

The back of the board, or interior face, appears to have water‐resistant qualities. During the firefighting operations, it is typical for significant amounts of water to come into contact with this fiber board sheathing. The introduction of moisture into this material results in warping, expansion, loss of integrity, pulling from the fasteners and other unfavorable functional damage. Such damage was not apparent throughout the remaining structure. Localized perforations were noted near the roof line where fire fighters were seeking access to battle the fire and these localized areas shall be patched.

Photographs No. 11‐15 present the observed condition of the exterior walls. While the load bearing function is provided primarily by the wood stud framing, the brick veneer serves to complete the building envelope and provide an aesthetic finish. Other common systems are stucco, siding, Exterior Insulation and Finish System (EIFS). Unlike these systems, brick veneer tends to be the least forgiving to foundation settlement conditions since it clearly exhibits fractures along its grout lines. Other indications of foundation settlement are uneven floor slopes, new and clean fractures on the surface, and differential settlement of the structure against adjacent sidewalks and rockwalls. Our visual inspections did not reveal such indicators.

6.0 Conclusions By the guideline presented in the Discussion and as recommended by R. S. Amin in “Structural Appraisals for Fire Damaged Buildings,”, the members shown in Photographs No 2 through 6 in addition to the adjacent stud or joist on each side not exhibiting damage shall be removed and replaced. Any other members observed during the re‐construction exhibiting similar charring shall be re removed & replaced. Since the roof structure has been removed, replacing these members shall require minimal shoring.

Page 4 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:106 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

In its current condition, the exterior unloaded walls should be easily accessed from the inside and any charred wood members can be replaced with relative ease. Similarly, exterior doors, door frames, and windows that have been dislodged, exhibit water damage, or charring should be removed and replaced.

The chimney will likely require a complete removal and replacement from approximately two feet below the roofline to the top. The lower portion may remain in place as‐is however its condition should be re‐ evaluated as demolition is progressed.

Typically fires initiate within a wall or the ceiling and the fire rises to the ceiling and adjacent members. Rarely does fire cause damage to floor slab or foundation. In areas of known expansive soils, the intrusion & puddling of water resulting from the firefighting operations may exacerbate pre‐existing differential settlement conditions. The floor damage observed throughout this property is cosmetic and will not impede its functional capacity. At the time of our visit and limited visual observations, there is no indication of foundation damage or failure.

The foundation and floor slab appear in sound condition and capable to sustain the load bearing of a single story wood frame structure. Erection of a multi‐story structure or walls of other construction materials such as concrete masonry unit (CMU) would require further analysis beyond the scope of this report.

The remaining walls and framing observed at the time of G‐3’s visit appears in sound condition and capable to sustain the load bearing of a typical roof structure with minor localized repairs and following conventional framing practice as dictated by the latest International Building Code (IBC).

It is recommenced the removal, replacement, or repair activities be conducted with the oversight of a structural engineer or experienced construction professional to ensure proper shoring and temporary supports. Furthermore, the repair or replacement of the structural members shall be completed with equal or better materials.

7.0 Qualifications The information presented in this report addressed the limited objectives related to the evaluation of the subject property. This report only describes the conditions present at the time of our evaluation. It is not intended to fully delineate or document every defect or deficiency throughout the subject property. If any additional information is encountered which relates to this evaluation, G‐3 reserves the right to alter the opinions presented in this report. In some cases, additional studies to include destructive testing may be warranted to fully evaluate concerns noted.

Our services have been performed using that degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised under similar conditions by reputable members of G‐3’s profession practicing in the same or similar locality at the time of performance.

Any verbal statements made before, during, or after the course of the investigation were made as a courtesy only and are not considered a part of this report.

Page 5 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:107 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

8.0 Closing G‐3ngineering, LLC appreciates the opportunity to offer our consulting services. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require additional information.

Sincerely, G‐3ngineering, LLC

Jaime Gallo, PE, CCM

Texas Board of Professional Engineering F‐14940 Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying F‐ 10194079

Page 6 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:108 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

9.0 References 1. Amin, R. S. “Structural Appraisals for Fire Damaged Buildings,” accessed August 5, 2016. http://keu92.org/uploads/Search%20engineering/STRUCTURAL%20APPRAISAL%20FOR%20FIRE. pdf 2. “Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations.” National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 921, 2004. 3. Noon, R. K. Forensic Engineering Investigation. New York: CRC Press, 2001.

Page 7 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:109 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

10.0 Attachment A: Figures & Photographs

Page 8 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:110 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

List of Figures Figure 1. Location Map. .............................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 2. Property Description. ................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 3 Approximate initiation of fire (indicated by red star). .................................................................. 15

List of Photographs Photograph No. 1 9328 MC Fall Dr. street view July 18, 2017. .................................................................. 14 Photograph No. 2 Garage exterior bearing wall stud damage. .................................................................. 16 Photograph No. 3 Exterior bearing wall stud and window frame damage. ............................................... 17 Photograph No. 4 Exterior bearing wall minimal damage & floor covering damage. ................................ 18 Photograph No. 5 Chimney smoke damage. .............................................................................................. 19 Photograph No. 6 Charred joist. ................................................................................................................. 20 Photograph No. 7 Living area interior load bearing wall and joist exhibit minimal damage and floor covering cosmetic damage. ........................................................................................................................ 21 Photograph No. 8 Exterior front load bearing wall minimal damage & floor cosmetic damage. .............. 22 Photograph No. 9 Interior load bearing wall minimal damage & floor covering damage. ........................ 23 Photograph No. 10 Interior view, looking North. ....................................................................................... 24 Photograph No. 11 Exterior wall façade exhibits normal wear & no signs of settlement against foundation. ................................................................................................................................................. 25 Photograph No. 12 Exterior brick façade in normal condition, no indication of settlement. .................... 26 Photograph No. 13 Rear exterior wall looking east, no signs of significant fractures. ............................... 27 Photograph No. 14 Exterior SW corner. ..................................................................................................... 28 Photograph No. 15 Exterior south wall normal brick veneer condition. .................................................... 29

August 9, 2016 AARB-1:111 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

Figure 1. Location Map.

Figure 2. Property Description.

Page 13 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:112 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

Photograph No. 1 9328 MC Fall Dr. street view July 18, 2017.

Page 14 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:113 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925 12 3 2

4 1 13

Bed 3

Garage

10 9 14

5 8 Living Room 7

Kitchen Bed 2 6 15

Bed 1

Figure 3 Approximate initiation of fire (indicated by red star).

Page 15 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:114 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

Photograph No. 2 Garage exterior bearing wall stud damage.

Page 16 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:115 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

Photograph No. 3 Exterior bearing wall stud and window frame damage.

Page 17 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:116 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

Photograph No. 4 Exterior bearing wall minimal damage & floor covering damage.

Page 18 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:117 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

Photograph No. 5 Chimney smoke damage.

Page 19 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:118 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

Photograph No. 6 Charred joist.

Page 20 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:119 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

Photograph No. 7 Living area interior load bearing wall and joist exhibit minimal damage and floor covering cosmetic damage.

Page 21 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:120 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

Photograph No. 8 Exterior front load bearing wall minimal damage & floor cosmetic damage.

Page 22 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:121 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

Photograph No. 9 Interior load bearing wall minimal damage & floor covering damage.

Page 23 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:122 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

Photograph No. 10 Interior view, looking North.

Page 24 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:123 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

Photograph No. 11 Exterior wall façade exhibits normal wear & no signs of settlement against foundation.

Page 25 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:124 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

Photograph No. 12 Exterior brick façade in normal condition, no indication of settlement.

Page 26 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:125 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

Photograph No. 13 Rear exterior wall looking east, no signs of significant fractures.

Page 27 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:126 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

Photograph No. 14 Exterior SW corner.

Page 28 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:127 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

Photograph No. 15 Exterior south wall normal brick veneer condition.

Page 29 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:128 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

11.0 Attachment B: Fire marshal’s report.

NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF PUBLICATION.

Page 9 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:129 9328 MC Fall Dr. El Paso, TX 79925

END OF REPORT

(This page intentionally left blank)

Page 10 August 9, 2016 AARB-1:130 N E W PROPOSED R E S I D E N C E Mcfall Residence OWNER NAME : MR. CHACON ADDRESS : 9328 MCFALL DR. EL PASO, TEXAS 79925

INDEX OF DRAWINGS MCFALL PROJECT No: 17-027

RESIDENCE ARCHITECTURAL COVER SHEET G.0 P R O A R Q SITE PLAN AND GENERAL NOTES A.0 drafter & design studio 801 Myrtle ave., suite "102", el paso tx.79902 FLOOR PLAN, FINISH SCHEDULE & DETAILS A.1 (915) 256-5573, proarq777@att.net EXT. ELEVATIONS, ROOF PLAN AND DETAILS A.2 INT. ELEVATIONS, DETAILS PLAN A.3 FRAMING ROOF PLAN, MECHANIC & TYPICAL SECTION A.4 FOUNDATION & DETAILS PLAN A.5

NORTH

VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1/32" = 1-0"

AARB-1:131 A.0 SHEET 1 OF 6

89.89' LL ROCKWA EXISTING

"W N06°38'29

22'-8" A.2 EXISTING

MCFALL RESIDENCE EXISTING ROCKWALL

OWNER NAME : Mr. CHACON CONCRETE DRIVEWAY LOT 16, BLOCK 143 NEW ADDITION:

H=2'-0" 116.59 SQ.FT. 7'-3" 32'-10"

23'-6"

NAME PROJECT EXISTING ROCKWALL

FR R W

EF GENERAL NOTES:

EE IN

.

ZE E

R WH DR

PANTRY 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS OF CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT OR

El Paso, TEXAS 79925 OWNER OF ANY OUTSTANDING DISCREPANCIES WHICH COULD IMPACT CONSTRUCTION COST, MEANS AND OR SCHEDULE. 7 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS OF ANY EXISTING AND NEW WORK AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE

9328 MCFALL DR. A.2 FOR THEIR ACCURACY, ANY DIFFERENCES FOUND SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO CONTRACTOR FOR CONSIDERATION CORNER CORNER OPEN SHELFS OPEN SHELFS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. MIRROR 9 A.2 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION AND SCHEDULING OF CONSTRUCTION ISLAND

WORK, PROVISION AND CONTROL OF ALL MEANS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION, FIRE PREVENTION, VANITY AREA

COORDINATION, ORDERING, DELIVERY AND STORAGE OF MATERIALS, REMOVAL OF DEBRIS AND ALL ASPECTS OF ROD & SHELF WALL

BENCH JOB SAFETY. NOTE: ROCK

WINE FREEZER THIS SURVEY WAS PROPORTIONATE FOR CAD CONSULTING COMPAY 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY WITH OWNER REPRESENTATIVE THE NEED FOR DUST CONTAINMENT BARRIERS ROD & SHELF

DRAWERS

CLOSET

4 SHLVS

CLOSET DRAWERS

4 SHLVS LINEN

LINEN

CORNER AT CONSTRUCTION / DEMOLITION OF GYPSUM BOARD WALL SYSTEMS. EXISTING AREA TO REMAIN OPEN G

SHELFS IN

5. MAKE THE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE OWNER TO VISIT THE SITE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL. EXIST

EXAMINE THE EXISTING SITE AND FACILITIES, FIELD VERIFY ALL CONDITIONS, SUBMISSIONS OF A PROPOSAL SHALL

5' UTILITY EASEMENT BE TAKEN AS EVIDENCE THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAS PHYSICALLY INSPECTED THE SITE AND MADE HIMSELF 2 IMAGE SITE PLAN FAMILIAR WITH, AND UNDERSTANDS THE REQUIRED SCOPE OF WORK. REPORT ALL DISCREPANCIES TO THE OWNER

ADDRESS : FOR CLARIFICATION BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. SCALE: NOT TO SCALE 6. ANY PROBLEMS DURING THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION THAT CANNOT BE SOLVED BY THE CONTRACTOR OR SPECIAL CONTRACTOR (PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL OR MECHANICAL) PLEASE CALL THE DESIGNER IN ORDER TO FIND A SOLUTION TOGETHER.

EXISTING ROCKWALL

15'-5" 25' SETBACK LINE

DATE: EXISTING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY KEYNOTES: ENT

37'-4" EASEM

32'-9"

I. PRE-CONSTRUCTION ILITY

APPLICABLE CODE REQUIREMENTS MAY VARY ALONG WITH CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND TECHNIQUES. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, RAFTERS, CEILING JOISTS, COLLAR TIES AND PURLINS TO BE SIZED AND SPACED IN 29'-4"

CONSULT WITH ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNING CODES. 10' UT

LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND EXPERIENCED PEOPLE IN BUILDING TRADES BEFORE STARTING CONSTRUCTION. 6 DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK. "N.T.S." DENOTES NOT ROOF AND FLOOR TRUSSES LAYOUT IS SCHEMATIC ONLY. TRUSS DESIGN INCLUDING SPACING SHALL BE DETERMINED BY A.2 TO SCALE. TRUSS MANUFACTURE / ENGINEER. II DESIGN LOADS FLOOR: 40 p.s.f. LIVE LOAD ROOF: 30 p.s.f. LIVE LOAD MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE "MICRO-LAM" MANUFACTURED BY TRUSS JOIST CORPORATION OR EQUAL. BENDING STRESS fb=2,800 p.s.i. THIS PRODUCT IS 10 p.s.f. DEAD LOAD 10 p.s.f. DEAD LOAD SOIL PRESSURE= p.s.f. MANUFACTURED GLUE-LAMINATED WOOD PRODUCT WITH SMALL LAMINATION SIMILAR TO PLYWOOD. CHECK WITH YOUR III CONCRETE LOCAL TRUSS MANUFACTURE FOR LOCAL AVAILABILITY.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL SLAB ON GRADE SHALL BE 3000 p.s.i. (28 DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH) SPECIAL UPLIFT CONNECTORS AS INDICATED AT CANTILEVERED JOISTS ARE TO BE (OR EQUAL TO ) "SIMPSON STRONG-TIE" EXISTING ROCKWALL ANCHORS. EXISTING ROCKWALL CONCRETE ON 4" SAND OR GRAVEL FILL MINIMUM WITH 6x6-W1.4xW1.4 W.W.M. REINFORCING. INTERIOR SLABS

REVISIONS : SHALL BE PLACED ON 6 MIL STABILIZED POLYETHERINE VAPOR BARRIER. EXTERIOR FLASHING TO BE CORRECTLY INSTALLED AT ALL CONNECTIONS BETWEEN ROOF, WALLS, FIREPLACE, AND PROJECTIONS OR PENETRATIONS AS REQUIRED BY GOOD COMMON CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES. PROVIDE 1 2" EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL BETWEEN ALL CONCRETE SLABS ON ABUTTING CONCRETE OF MASONRY WALLS OCCURRING IN EXTERIOR OR UNHEATED INTERIOR AREAS. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE ATTIC VENTILATION / ROOF VENTS / ON ROOF PER LOCAL GOVERNING CODE. INSTALL CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENTILATION AND PAINT TO MATCH ROOF. PROVIDE APPROPRIATE SOFFIT VENTILATION AT OVERHANGS. PLACED 1 2" DIAMETER x 12" SILL PLATE ANCHOR BOLTS AT EACH VERTICAL REBAR (WHERE OCCURRING) OR AT

PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS. 4'-0" ON CENTER AND AT EACH CORNER AND BOTH SIDES OF OPENINGS. V INSULATION, GYPSUM BOARD AND FINISHES PROVIDE R-11 BATT INSULATION IN ALL WALLS AND R-30 (MINIMUM) BLOWN

AGGRESIVELY PURSUED TO THE FULLEST ANY REPRODUCTION OF THESE PRINTS IS INSULATION (OR BATT AND BLOW COMBINATION) IN ALL CEILINGS, FLOORS, AND RAFTERS ADJACENT TO THE EXTERIOR OR

ANY ILLEGAL REPRODUCTION WILL BE

08-20-2017 UNHEATED SPACES.

EXTENT OF THE COPYRIGHT LAW. CONTRACTOR TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SIZE, LOCATION, AND INSTALLATION OF REQUIRED STEEL REINFORCING

IMPORTANT NOTE:

PROJECT No. 17-027 DESIGNED: CHAIREZ IN FOOTINGS INSTALL SIDE WALL AND CEILING INSULATION IN CONTINUOUS BLANKETS WITHOUT HOLES FOR ELECTRICAL BOXES AND

INFORMATION: AND WALL PER LOCAL CODES OR SPECIFIC SOIL CONDITIONS; WHICHEVER IS MORE. LIGHT FIXTURES OR HEATING DUCTWORK, CAULK ALL OPENINGS IN EXTERIOR WALL CONSTRUCTION.

SCALE: As Noted FOOTING SIZES SHOWN ARE ONLY TYPICAL FOR STATED SOIL PRESSURES AND CONSISTENT COMPACTION INSTALL 6 MIL POLYETHYLENE VAPOR BARRIERS AGAINST INSIDE OF ALL INSULATION. LAP 18" MINIMUM TAPE IF LESS. WHICHEVER IS MORE RESTRICTIVE. EXTERIOR WALL SHEATING: 1" EXTRUDED FOAM BOARDS WITH 1/2"x48" WIDE C-D EXT. PLYWOOD BOTH DIRECTIONS AT ALL CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY FOOTINGS DEPTHS WITH LOCAL FROST REQUIREMENTS OR EXISTING SOIL CORNERS. (MINIMUM R-5)

DATE : PROJECT DATA CONDITIONS; WHICHEVER OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL IS MORE RESTRICTIVE. ALL INTERIOR WALLS ARE TO COVERED WITH 1/2" GYPSUM BOARD, WITH METAL CORNER REINFORCING, TAPE, FLOAT AND ZONING R-4 SINGLE FAMILY SAND. (3 COATS) USE 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD ON CEILINGS WHEN SUPPORTING MEMBERS ARE 24" ON CENTER OR GRATER. USE MIN FRONT 10' PROVIDE TERMITE PROTECTION AS REQUIRED BY LOCAL CODES. 1/2" GYPSUM BOARD ON CEILINGS WHEN SUPPORTING MEMBERS ARE LESS THAN 24" ON CENTER FINISH AS NOTED ABOVE. RECOMMENDED: REAR YARD 10' PROVIDE DEEP SCORE CONTROL JOINTS AT MID POINTS OF ALL GARAGES, BOTH DIRECTIONS. GARAGE WALLS AND CEILINGS COMMON TO HOUSE ARE TO BE COVERED WITH ONE LAYER 5/8" TYPE "X" GYPSUM BOARD. FINISH FLOOR OF BUILDING SHALL BE 1'-0" ABOVE MIN CUMULATIVE FRONT & REAR 45' ELEVATION OF EXISTING PROPERTY STREET. MIN SIDE YARD 5' IV CARPENTRY USE WATER RESISTANT GYPSUM BOARD FOR WALLS AND CEILING IN ALL BATH AND TOILET AREAS. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, MINIMUM FRAMING LUMBER SHALL BE HEM-FIR No. 2 CONSTRUCTION GRADE. EXIST. FRONT PORCH 240.27 SQ FT BEAMS, HEADERS AND FLOOR JOISTS SHALL HAVE AN ALLOWABLE BENDING STRESS OF 1,200 p.s.i. INTERIOR TRIM AND FINISHES TO BE SELECTED BY OWNER. NEW REAR PORCH 95.48 SQ FT ALL HEADERS SHALL BE FREE FROM ALL SPILLS, CHECKS OR SHAKES. EXIST- GARAGE 379.26 SQ.FT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, PROVIDE: MISCELLANEOUS ALL CLOSET SHELVING TO BE PREFABRICATED, PREFINISHED METAL WITH PROTECTIVE VINYL COATING. P R O A R Q drafter & design studio 1. DOUBLE HEADER JOIST AND TRIMMERS AT ALL FLOOR OPENINGS. (UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED BY OWNER.) 801 MYRTLE SUITE "102", EL PASO TEXAS, 79902

EXIST LIVING AREA 2,520.65 SQ FT 2. DOUBLE JOISTS UNDER ALL PARALLEL PARTITIONS. (915) 256-5573, proarq777@att.net

1 SITE PLAN NEW ADD LIVING AREA 116.59 SQ.FT. 3. DOUBLE 2"X12" HEADERS (WITH 1 2" PLYWOOD BETWEEN) FOR ALL EXTERIOR OPENINGS AND THOSE IN ANY REFERENCES TO A SPECIFIC BRAND OR MANUFACTURER IS AT THE REQUEST OF THE BUILDER. TOTAL LIVING AREA 2,637.24 SQ FT LOAD BEARING SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" WALLS. (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLAN) PLAN AND / OR ELEVATION CHANGES MAY HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE PRELIMINARY PLAN THAT APPEARED IN THE 4. TWO ROWS OF 1"x3" CROSS BRIDGING OR METAL BRIDGING PER JOISTS SPAN. PUBLICATION. LEGAL DESCRIPTION BUILDING ADDRESS 5. FLOOR CONSTRUCTION: 1 2" PLYWOOD UNDER 5 8" UNDERLAYMENT w/ BUILDING PAPER BETWEEN.

SHEET TITLE 143 CIELO VISTA PARK, LOT 16 I FEEL THESE CHANGES ENHANCE THE CHARACTER AND VALUE OF THE HOME.

floor plan SITE PLAN 9328 MCFALL DR. (OPTIONAL 3 4" TOUNGE PID: C51899914303100 EL PASO, TEXAS 79925 AND GROOVE.)

ALL WOOD PLATES IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE TO BE "PRESSURE TREADED".

AARB-1:132 A.1 67'-5" 22'-3" 18'-11" 12'-7" 13'-8" VINYL DOUBLE PANE DOUBLE STRENGTH EGRESS SLIDING WINDOW VINYL DOUBLE PANE DOUBLE 1'-4" ALUMINUM SINGLE STRENGTH EGRESS SLIDING WINDOW ENERGY-EFFICENT ALUMINUM SINGLE 3'-11" 6' 8' 3' 12'-7" 4'-10" 4' 4'-10" HUNG WINDOW 11/16" DUAL PANE HUNG WINDOW ENERGY-EFFICENT W4 ENERGY-EFFICENT ENERGY-EFFICENT 11/16" DUAL PANE 11/16" DUAL PANE GLASS OBS/SAFETY SHEET 11/16" DUAL PANE GLASS GLASS GLASS 5' 6' GLASS 3' 4' 3' 2 OF 6

2'

2' D5 10'-4"

3' 4'

4' BEDROOM 3

5' 7'-7"

7'-7"

6'-8"

6'-8" 7'-3" REAR PORCH 190

4'-8"

4'-8" 5'

2'-8" THEATER ROOM 290

10'-9"

1'-8" 250

13'-5" 14'

14' W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6

15'-6" EXISTING WINDOW 1 EXISTING WINDOW 2 EXISTING WINDOW 3 WINDOW 4 EXISTING WINDOW 5 EXISTING WINDOW 6 2'-4"

4'-5" D7

FRAME WOOD FRAME WOOD FRAME WOOD FRAME WOOD FRAME WOOD FRAME WOOD 3'-4" 6' 3'-4" FRAME WOOD WOOD WOOD WOOD WOOD WOOD FRAME WOOD WOOD TEMPERED GLASS

MCFALL RESIDENCE TV TEMPERED GLASS 3'

5'-1"

OWNER NAME : Mr. CHACON 3' 5'

1'-7" SD/COD 2'-8" 2' 2' 2' 3' 3' 4' 3 6'-8" D2

6" 1'-8" 17'-11" BATHROOM 3

3'

2'-4" 200

5' 6'-8" D6 3

6'-8" 3'

7'

7' W3 W3 D7 8'-5" DINNING ROOM TV 110

3' 13'-2"

FR IN R

3'-3"

1'-8" EF 2'-3"

W EE E 2'-4"

ZE R MASTER BEDROOM WP

4'-9" 8" MASTER BATH

4'-3" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

8' 10'-1"

130 9'-5"

140 WP WP DOOR 1 DOOR 2 DOOR 3 DOOR 4 DOOR 5 DOOR 6 DOOR 7 DOOR 3 TV 5'-3" 7' 6'-2" GFCI GFCI SLIDING DOORS SLIDING DOORS 18'-5" 12'-9" WH DR WP

17/A.3 GFCI WINDOW & DOOR DETAILS 14'

LAUNDRY 4

PANTRY 6'-10"

2'-8"

NAME PROJECT 7' D2

3' W3 230

46'-3" SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 3'-4" 5'-1" SD/COD 9'-4" 16/A.3

2'-6" GFCI WP

2'-4" 4'-7"

5'-3" 2'-8"

D2 CP 1 3/4" 2X4 STUD ONE APLICATION STUCCO WALL TYPES 3'

3'-10" SD/COD WP WP WP FRENCH WITH CORNER EDGE 3' 16'-2" W3 GFCI 3 G 3 DOOR WITH 2" WOOD MOLDING EXIST 2"X6" WOOD STUDS AT 16" O.C. W/ 1/2"

El Paso, TEXAS 79925 2'-10" 4' 2'-10" 3'-6" 25'-7" 5'-7" 9'-8"

GFCI WP

3' D8 TEMPERED FRAME 1/2" GYP. BD. TAPE, BED, TEXTURE AND PAINT AS 56'-5"

56'-5" 3 7" D2 GLASS SHEATHING SELECTED BY OWNER. (PROVIDE CEMENT 4"

D8 BATHROOM 2 BOARD AT ALL WET & TILE WALLS.)

9328 MCFALL DR. CORNER CORNER 170 5'

W.I.C. 3

GFCI WP OPEN OPEN SHELFS SHELFS TV LIVING ROOM 1/4" STAINED NEW 2"X6" WOOD STUDS AT 16" O.C. W/ 1/2" GYP. 150 100 GLASS BD. TAPE, BED, TEXTURE AND PAINT AS

15'-1" D2 MIRROR 2- GARAGE SELECTED BY OWNER. (PROVIDE CEMENT

8' 31'-6" 260 1/2" SHIM BOARD AT ALL WET & TILE WALLS.) ISLAND

T SPACE 1/8" TEMPERED

15/A.3 D3 GLASS WOOD VANITY AREA

3'-2" WP TRIM 2X4 JAM GFCI 5'

12'-5"

ROD & SHELF 42'-5"

W5 1/2" GYP.

19'-10" 9'-1" WP

GFCI WP KITCHEN BD. BENCH SD/COD DR/WDW. JAM DETAIL 3'

WP 120 5

17'-4" ROOF MOUNTED 9'-8" 3 WINE W.P. HALL WAY FREEZER SCALE: NTS

ADDRESS : D4 ROD & SHELF

280 DRAWERS

CLOSET 4 SHLVS

UTILITY DRAWERS

D3 LINEN

LINEN 3'

CORNER OPEN WP 210 GFCI DOOR SCHEDULE (TYPICAL) 7'-7"

6'-4"

SHELFS BREAKFAST 110B 18'-3"

6'-5" SD/COD 12'-4"

3 9'-3" D5 D5 3'-4" 12'-11"

DATE: SD/COD SD/COD W1 D2 D2 3'-2" 3'

W3 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 1 180 160

4'-7" W2 WINDOWS SCHEDULE (TYPICAL) 12'

12'

3 3

10'-3" WP 8'-9"

TV D1

TV 3' 3'-5" 6' 4' 2'-2" 4' 5'-5" 14' 2'-4" 4'

5'-8" 10'-9" 10'-9" 1'-6" 4" 1'-6"

1'-6"

W1 W1

FRONT PORCH 290 ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE

REVISIONS : 6'-8" 3'-8" 3'-6"

2'-10" 5' 6'-11" 5' 3' 1'-6" 9'-6" 1'-6" 4' 1'-6" 9'-6" 1'-6" 1'-6"

12'-6" 12'-6"

PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS. 27'-11"

AGGRESIVELY PURSUED TO THE FULLEST ANY REPRODUCTION OF THESE PRINTS IS 22'-9" 16'-9"

08-20-2017 67'-5"

EXTENT OF THE COPYRIGHT LAW. IMPORTANT NOTE:

PROJECT No. 17-027 DESIGNED: CHAIREZ 3 FLOOR PLAN

INFORMATION: SCALE: As Noted SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ELECTRICAL PLAN LEGEND ELECTRIC KEY NOTES CA/TV NEW WALLS TV CABLE T.V JACK 2'X4' FLUORESCENT

DATE : 110V POLARIZED GROUNDED OUTLET GAS LIGHT FIXTURE 1. ALL OUTLETS AT VANITIES AND COUNTERS TO BE @ 42" A.F.F. 220V OUTLET (COORDINATE APPLIANCE GAS HOOK UP LOCATION 2. PROVIDE 110V UNDER COUNTER OUTLET FOR DISHWASHER AND GARBAGE 220V TYPE WITH HOME OWNER) EXISTING WALLS DISPOSAL. GROUND FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTOR S.L. CEILING SPOT LIGHT GFCI (PROTECTED BY..) LIGHT FIXTURE 3. PROVIDE OUTLET AT 60" A.F.F. FOR RANGE HOOD. 4. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES AND OUTLETS TO BE WEATHERPROOF. GROUND FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTOR WALL MOUNT LIGHT FIXTURE (PROTECTED BY..) IN WEATHER PROOF MOTOR JACUZZI W.P. / GFCI 5. ELECTRICIAN TO SIZE AND LOCATE PANEL AND SERVICE. ENCLOSURE W.P. 6. ELECTRICIAN TO PROVIDE POWER TO AC UNITS. - 120 VOLT QUAD FLOOR RECEP. ROOF MOUNTED CEILING FAN W/ LIGHT 7. ALL OUTLETS IN THE KITCHEN, BATHROOMS, UTILITY ROOM AND GARAGE TO BE P R O A R Q RECESSED LIGHT ( SIZE AND STYLE G.F.C.I. AS PER BUILDER'S SELECTION) FINISH KEY drafter & design 801 MYRTLE SUITE "102", EL PASO TEXAS, 79902 (915) 256-5573, proarq777@att.net studio

SWITCH RECESSED LIGHT 8. MATERIAL AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM WITH THE LATEST NATIONAL S FLOOD LIGHT CP ELECTRICAL CODE, LOCAL POWER COMPANY AND GOVERNING AUTHORITIES. S3 3-WAY WITCH CONTROL PANEL

9. MATERIAL SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS OF THE NATIONAL SG GARAGE DOOR OPENER

FINISH SCHEDULE TELEPHONE OUTLET BOX RECESSED PUCK LIGHT ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURES ASSOCIATION AND SHALL BE NEW AND U.L. LABELED. SD SMOKE DETECTOR/ALARM (ALL INTER- WALLS COLOR PROPOSED

& DETAIL PLAN CONNECTED AS CODE REQUIREMENTS)

SHEET TITLE DOOR BELL

FLOOR PLAN INTERIORS COLOR PROPOSED EXTERIORS COLOR PROPOSED 10. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE AND VERIFY WITH THE MECHANICAL SMOKE DETECTOR/CARBON MOXIDE DOOR BELL CHIME BOX SD/COD DETECTOR COMBO (ALL INTER- AND PLUMBING CONTRACTOR THE LOCATION AND PUMPS, T-STATS, INTERLOCK CONNECTED AS CODE REQUIREMENTS) T THERMOSTAT WIRING, ETC. EXHAUST FAN MIN. 50 CFM EXHAUSTED TDIRECTLY O THE OUTSIDE MS MOTION SENSOR 11. VERIFY ALL LOCATIONS OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT WITH OTHER TRADES TO AVOID NOTE: ALL PAINTINGS ARE OLYMPIC BRAND, OR SIMILAR. REF: R303.3 EXCEPTION CONFLICTS AND INTERFERENCES.

AARB-1:133 3" 12" *THIS IMAGE IS REPRESENTATIVE AND THE DESIGN MAY VARY IN THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT WOOD SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING SHINGLE ROOF A.2 SHINGLE ROOF WOOD SIDING TO 3" 12" TOP ROOF MATCH EXISTING TOP ROOF TOP ROOF 3" 12" TOP ROOF SHEET 3 OF 6

11" 11" ROOF GUTTER 8'-3"

8'-3" 4'-9"

4'-8" 4'-10"

4'-10" 8'-3"

8'-3" 2'-9" 3'-7" 3'-11" CEILING CEILING

18'-3" 18'-3"

18'-3"

18'-3" LINE LINE

17'-9" 3'

3' HEADER LINE HEADER HEADER

12'-11"

12'-7"

4' LINE LINE

3' 10'

10'

MCFALL RESIDENCE 5'

9'

OWNER NAME : Mr. CHACON 7' 5'

5' 4' 2'

F.F. LINE F.F. LINE F.F. LINE F.F. LINE 4"

4" 4"

4" 2'-10" 5' 2'-8" 1'-6" 9'-6" 1'-6" 4' 1'-6" 9'-6" 2'-2" 5'-5" 14' 2'-4" 14' 10'-1" 3' 5' 5' 7'-7" 3' 8'-9" 1'-10" 2'-6" 4' EXISTING BRICK POLYURETHANE TO MATCH EXISTING BRICK EXISTING BRICK 3 COAT STUCCO SYSTEM 1'-6" DECORATIVE MOLDING WHEN CLOSING OPENINGS COLOR SELECT BY OWNER 13 A-2 6 FRONT ELEVATION 7 LEFT ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" PROPOSED CANTILEVER SHINGLE ROOF SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" PERGOLA 4X4 WOOD 3" 12" WOOD SIDING TO

NAME PROJECT ROOF GUTTER WOOD SIDING TO SHINGLE ROOF MATCH EXISTING 3" 12" MATCH EXISTING TOP ROOF TOP ROOF TOP ROOF TOP ROOF

11" 4'-9" 5'-11"

3" 12"

8'-3" 4'-8" 6'-10" 8'-3"

8'-3"

El Paso, TEXAS 79925 1'-4" 3'-6" 2'-4"

9328 MCFALL DR. 4'-1" CEILING LINE

18'-3" 4'-5" 3'

3' HEADER HEADER HEADER HEADER

4' LINE LINE LINE LINE

12'-3" 11'-5" 10'

10' 4'

4'

4' 7'

5' 4" 3'

3' 3' 4"

4" F.F. LINE F.F. LINE F.F. LINE F.F. LINE

4" 5'-4" 3' 5'-4" 3'-4" 6' 3'-4" 18'-11" 1'-4" 3' 8' 6' 3'-11" 1'-6" 3'-8" 1'-6" 3'-6" 4'-7" 17'-4" 3' 2'-4" 3' 4'-3" 3' 13'-4"

ADDRESS : 3 COAT STUCCO SYSTEM POLYURETHANE EXISTING BRICK TO MATCH EXISTING BRICK COLOR SELECT BY OWNER DECORATIVE MOLDING 13 WHEN CLOSING OPENINGS TO MATCH EXISTING BRICK A-2

8 REAR ELEVATION WHEN CLOSING OPENINGS 9 RIGHT ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"

DATE: SOFFIT VENT @ 48 O.C WALL LINE ASPHALT-IMPREGNATED SLOPE ROOFING FELT 12" SHINGLE 1 6"X 6" TYPICAL 2" PLYWOOD W/8D NAILS AT WOOD COLUMN EVERY 6" 12"OVERHANG 3" 5/8" PLYWOOD ROOF SHINGLE ROOF 1 DECO BOX 2" ROOF SHEATHING 12 METAL "U" WITH 3" SLOPE SLOPE ROOFING FELT ANCHOR BOLT PRE-FAB WOOD TRUSS 3 SLOPE SEE FRAMING ROOF PLAN R-30 BATT. INSULATION BAFFLE TO CONTAIN & COMPRESS 4" CONCRETE SLAB

REVISIONS : INSULATION WHERE SCREENED VENTS OCCUR GALV. DRIP EDGE W/ SPACER FASCIA 2"x4" SUB-FASCIA COMPACTED SOIL 95% SEE FRAMING SLOPE ROOF PLAN VENTED SOFFIT VENTED SOFFIT

PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS. SHINGLE ROOF 2-2"X6" DOUBLE PLATE SEE FOUNDATION DETAIL

AGGRESIVELY PURSUED TO THE FULLEST ANY REPRODUCTION OF THESE PRINTS IS R-15 BATT. INSULATION

08-20-2017 R 30 INSULATION SOLID BLOCKING 7 16" WAFER BOARD W/8d NAILS @ 3"

EXTENT OF THE COPYRIGHT LAW. IMPORTANT NOTE: IMPREGNATED SHEATHING

PROJECT No. 17-027 1/2" DRYWALL

DESIGNED: CHAIREZ 2"x6" BLOCKING 8'-0" H. SLOPE SLOPE

INFORMATION: 2"x6" STUD @ 16" O.C.

SCALE: As Noted DBL. 2x6 PL. TOP PLATE 1 2" GYPSUM BOARD

12 R 3.5 R BOARD FIBERGLASS

3 OR EQUAL COLUMN DETAIL

6"X16" MTL SCREEN 12

DATE : 11 TYPICAL SECTION WALL

SLOPE SLOPE 1/2" DRY WALL BOARD SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" OR APPROVED THERMAL BARRIER SCALE: NTS

3/4" 3-COAT STUCCO ON MTL. R -15 LATH. 1/2"EXT.SHEATING W/ELASTOMERIC STUCCO FINISH PRESSURE TREATED WOOD BASE 2 X6 EXTERIORS COLOR PROPOSED P R O A R Q drafter & design studio 801 MYRTLE SUITE "102", EL PASO TEXAS, 79902 (915) 256-5573, proarq777@att.net

1/2" o X 10" ANCHOR BOLT @ 48" O.C. MAX.

TYPICAL SECTION WALL EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

ROOF PLAN & DETAILS SEE FOUNDATION PLAN NOTE: ALL PAINTINGS ARE OLYMPIC BRAND, OR SIMILAR.

SHEET TITLE 10 TYPICAL SECTION WALL 13 ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

AARB-1:134 A.3 4" GRANITE BACKSPLASH. UPPER CABINET TO SIT ON COUNTERTOP, 1X1 MOSAIC AT KITCHEN WALL, COLOR AS AND EXTEND UP AS SHOWN. SELECTED BY OWNER. GRANITE COUNTER TOP COLOR TO BE WOOD CROWN MOLDING BY CABINET SELECTED BY OWNER. 2- 2"X6" HEADER FABRICATOR.

SHEET MIN. BRG EL. = + [7'-6"] APEX OF FRAMED ARCH 4 OF 6

2"X4" WALL STUD @ 16" O.C. SIMPSON H2.5A TIE 2"X4" TOP PLATE EA. SIDE TYP. +/- VARIABLE

LOW EL. = + [6'-6"] 2- 2"X4" CRIPPLE OF FRAMED ARCH STUD & 2 - KING STUDS

2"X4" WALL STUD

2"X4" CORNER WALL STUD NOTE: EXISTING FIRE PLACE TO

MCFALL RESIDENCE BE

OWNER NAME : Mr. CHACON IMPROVEMENT SHEATH INTERIOR WALLS WOOD CABINETS, WOOD TYPE AND COLOR AS SELECTED BY OWNER. W/1/2" APA RATED SHTG/OSB MIN.-8d NAILS @ 4'-2" 1'-11" 1'-11" 1'-6" 1'-6" 1'-11" 1'-11" 6" O.C. E.N. & 12" O.C. FIELD 15'-5"

15 KITCHEN F.F. ELEV. = 0'-0"

SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" 16 LIVING ROOM SCALE: 3/8" =1'-0"

18 TYPICAL FRAMING ARCH DETAIL

NAME PROJECT SCALE: NTS

PRE-FAB TERMINATION CHASE CAP NON-COMBUSTIBLE COLLAR CHASE TOP

El Paso, TEXAS 79925 FIBERGLASS SHINGLE ROOF SEE ELEVATION FOR DECO TRIM CONDITION

9328 MCFALL DR. 7/16" OSB DECK

4" GRANITE BACKSPLASH. UPPER CABINET TO SIT ON COUNTERTOP, 1X1 MOSAIC AT KITCHEN WALL, COLOR AS AND EXTEND UP AS SHOWN. SELECTED BY OWNER. GRANITE COUNTER TOP COLOR TO BE RAFTER SEE ROOF FRAMING FOR SPACING AND SIZE WOOD CROWN MOLDING BY CABINET SELECTED BY OWNER. FABRICATOR. 2"X6" CLG. JTS 2-2"x6" TOP PLATE R:26 BATT. INSUL 13" DIA. OR SQUARE FLUE 1/2" GYP BD.

EXTERIOR FIN. TO BE 2"x4" WD STUDS @ 16" O.C. STUCCO ON METAL LATH W/ R-19 INSUL.

ADDRESS : WOOD MANTEL

+/- VARIABLE HEADER SEE ROOF FRAMING NOTES 1/2" IMPREG. SHT. BD. BRICK TRIM

PROVIDE 4"X3"X3/16" STEEL ANGLE

DATE: R:13 INSUL. OUTSIDE PRE-FAB WALL OF CHASE FIRE BOX BRICK HEARTH

WOOD CABINETS, WOOD TYPE AND COLOR 2"X8" FRAME AS SELECTED BY OWNER. SEE FOUNDATION 1'-10" 3'-9" 1'-3" 1'-2" 1'-2" 1'-2" 1'-2" 1'-3" FL. FIN. AS SCHEDULE 12'-7"

17 MASTER BATH SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" 19 METHOD PFH:PORTAL FRAME 16B SECTION W-W SCALE: SCALE: 3/8" =1'-0" W I T H H O L D DOWNS NTS

REVISIONS : ELECTRICAL LOAD CALCULATIONS 5749 VALLEY LILAC LANE EL PASO TX 79932 RIDGE 2-2"x12" ( 70' -5" )

PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS. GENERAL LOAD

AGGRESIVELY PURSUED TO THE FULLEST ANY REPRODUCTION OF THESE PRINTS IS 9,231 VA 3077*3VA

08-20-2017 EXTENT OF THE COPYRIGHT LAW. SHINGLE SMALL APPLIANCE KIT 3,000 VA

PROJECT No. 17-027 DESIGNED: CHAIREZ INFORMATION: CONDUIT OR LAUNDRY CIRCUIT 1,500 VA

SCALE: As Noted ENTRANCE CABLE 8'-3"

APPLIANCE LOADS 4,248 VA TO SUB PANEL PRE-ENGINNERING DRYER 5,000 VA TRUSSES @ 24" O.C. CEILING

DATE : 2" COND. HEIGHT = 10'-0" 3 #2/0 250V-200AMP SINGLE OVEN 4,000 VA (NEMA 3R ENCL) INDOOR 200A GENERAL TOTAL 26,979 VA ISC SWITCH PANEL ELEC, METER 200 A SUB FUSED 200 AMPS 20/40 AS DIRECT MAIN PANEL FIRST 10,VA AT 100% 10,000 CIRCUITS BY E.P.E.C. DISC FIREPLACE REMAINDER=16,979 AT 40% 10'

6,791 200 A #4 WRT A/C LOAD 2 * 7,400 14,800 PROJECTION OF FOUNDATION. GROUND SPARE LOAD 76 AMPS P R O A R Q GRAND TOTAL 31,591 VA SEE DETAIL IN drafter & design 801 MYRTLE SUITE "102", EL PASO TEXAS, 79902 studio A-5 (915) 256-5573, proarq777@att.net

31,591/240V= 131 AMPS 200 AMPS MAIN SERVICE RISER DIAGRAM

TYPICAL SECTION WALL INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 8' 1'-5" 2'-5" 7'-11" 5'-9" N.T.S.

ELECTRICAL LOAD 25'-5"

RISER DIAGRAM, CALCULATIONS, SHEET TITLE

DETAILS PLAN 20 ELECTRIC DIAGRAM & CALCULATION 24 SECTION 1 SCALE: NTS SCALE: 3/16" =1'-0"

AARB-1:135 57'-5" 65'-9" A.4 48'-6" 41'-1" SHEET

PRE-ENGINNERING TRUSSES @ 24" O.C. 37'-6" 5 OF 6 22'-7"

20'-10" 15'-8"

HDR 13'-10"

HDR

HDR CEILING

MCFALL RESIDENCE HEIGHT = 10'-0" CEILING

OWNER NAME : Mr. CHACON HDR HEIGHT = 10'-0"

12'-6" HDR HDR

HDR HDR HDR

2'-3" 4'-5"

FR IN R EF

W EE E

NAME PROJECT . HDR

ZE R 8'-8" 9'-7" PRE-ENGINNERING TRUSSES @ 24" O.C.

13'-3" WH DR HDR HDR

PRE-ENGINNERING TRUSSES @ 24" O.C.

PANTRY HDR RIDGE 2-2"x12" ( 70' -5" ) HDR

20'-9"

El Paso, TEXAS 79925 HDR

9328 MCFALL DR. CEILING

27'-5" HEIGHT = 10'-0" CORNER CORNER HDR

OPEN OPEN SHELFS SHELFS CEILING HEIGHT = 10'-0" MIRROR

27'-10" HI

ISLAND P HDR 2- 2" x1

VANITY AREA " ) 2" -8

ROD & SHELF (2 HDR

2 2' 2'

19'-9" -8 "( BENCH ") x12 R 2" 2- WINE

14'-7" P FREEZER HDR HI HDR

ROD & SHELF

ADDRESS : DRAWERS

LINEN CORNER OPEN HDR HDR

3-2"X12" BEAM SHELFS HDR

18" OVERHANG FROM FRAME WALL RIDGE 2-2"x12" ( 31' -3" )

CEILING HDR HEIGHT = 10'-0"

DATE: 18" OVERHANG FROM 2-2"X12" BEAM

FRAME WALL

HDR HDR 2-2"X12" BEAM

18" OVERHANG FROM FRAME WALL 2-2"X12" BEAM 2-2"X12" BEAM

18" OVERHANG FROM FRAME WALL 6X6 TYPICAL WOOD COLUMN or EQUIVALENT

REVISIONS : PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS.

AGGRESIVELY PURSUED TO THE FULLEST ANY REPRODUCTION OF THESE PRINTS IS FRAMING ROOF PLAN MECHANIC & PLUMBING PLAN

ANY ILLEGAL REPRODUCTION WILL BE 25 26

08-20-2017 EXTERIOR LOAD BEARING WALL SHALL BE 2x6 @ 16" o/c.

EXTENT OF THE COPYRIGHT LAW. INTERIOR NON LOAD BEARING SHALL BE 2x4 @ 16" o/c.

PROJECT No. 17-027 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"

DESIGNED: CHAIREZ INFORMATION: SCALE: As Noted GENERAL WOOD NOTES: GENERAL NOTES:

1. ALL JOISTS, BEAMS STUDS IN BEARING WALLS AND COLUMNS BE DOUGLAS FIR, SOUTHERN YELLOW PINE #2 OR BETTER.

DATE : 1. PRE-ENGINEERING TRUSSES AS SPECIFIED SEE ATTACHMENTS 2. PLYWOOD SHALL BE A MINIMUM 1/2" C-D WITH EXTERIOR GLUE OR AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS. PLYWOOD SHALL BE PLACED IN A RUNNING BOND. 2. REPORT ALL DISCREPANCIES TO THE CONTRACTOR FOR CLARIFICATION BEFORE PROCEEDING WOOD FASTENER FASTENER: NUMBER OF SPACING: 3. STUDS IN NON BEARING WALLS MAY BE STUD GRADE LUMBER. WITH THE WORK. CONNECTION: TWIST STRAPS AS DETAILED AS DETAILED 1. JOIST TO SILL OR GIRDER 8d COMMON 2 4. LUMBER FOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE S4S, GRADE STAMPED, AND HAVE A MOISTURE CONTENT OF LESS THAN 19%. 3. BEFORE TRUSSES FABRICATION, GIVE A COPY OF ORIGINAL TRUSSES DESIGN PLAN TO MECHANIC 1.) ALL HEADERS TO FOLLOW 2. BRIDGING TO JOIST, TOE NAIL SIZING AS LISTED: CONTRACTOR FOR VERIFICATION. EACH END 16d COMMON 2 1'-0"-2'-0"= 2-2X4 5. WOOD SUBJECT TO MOISTURE EXPOSURE SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE AWPB TREATMENT. 3. TOP OR SOLE PLATE TO STUD, 2'-0"- 4'-0"= 2-2X6 4. BASED ON A 10-FOOT TRIBUTARY FLOOR AND ROOF LOADS: IN OTHER WORDS, HEADERS LOCATED END NAILED 8d COMMON 4 4'-0"- 6'-0"= 2-2X8 6. INSTALL ROUGH CARPENTRY WORK TO COMPLY WITH " MANUAL OF HOUSE FRAMING" BY NATIONAL FOREST PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION AND WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF IN EXTERIOR WALLS AND SUPPORTING JOISTS SPANNING 10-FOOT WIDE ROOMS ON EACH SIDE. 4. STUD TO SOLE PLATE, TOE NAIL 10d COMMON 24" O.C. 6'-0"- 9'-0"= 2-2X10 AMERICAN PLYWOOD ASSOCIATION, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. FOR SHEATHING, UNDERLAYMENT AND OTHER PRODUCTS NOT COVERED IN ABOVE STANDARDS , 5. DOUBLED STUDS, FACE NAIL 2-16d OR 3-10d COMMON 9'-0"- (AS NOTED ON PLAN) COMPLY WITH RECOMMENDED MANUFACTURER OF PRODUCT INVOLVED FOR USE INTENDED. SET CARPENTRY WORK TO REQUIRED LEVELS AND LINES, WITH MEMBERS PLUMB 5. BASED ON HEADER PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR WALL HEIGHT EQUAL TO WIDTH OF OPENING. 6. TOP PLATES, LAP AND INTER- 2X4's TO BE PINE #2 STD. OR BTR AND TRUE AND CUT TO FIT. P R O A R Q drafter & design studio 801 MYRTLE SUITE "102", EL PASO TEXAS, 79902 SECTIONS FACE NAIL 2X6's-2X12'S TO BE HEM-FIR #2 STD. OR BTR 6. NOMINAL 4-INCH WIDE SINGLE HEADERS MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE DOUBLE MEMBERS. (915) 256-5573, proarq777@att.net 16d COMMON 16" O.C. ALONG EACH EDGE 7. CONTINUOUS HEADER, TWO PIECES 2.) ALL HEADERS TO HAVE 7/16" WAFERBOARD 7. PRE-ENGINEERED WOOD TRUSSES SHALL BE DESIGNED BY AN ENGINEER REGISTERED IN THE STATE DE TEXAS, WHO IS LISTED IN THE TEXAS REGISTRATION BOARD'S LATEST 8d COMMON 3 8. CEILING JOISTS TO PLATE, TOE NAIL GLUED BETWEEN MEMBERS W/ ROSTER OF ENGINEERS AS A CIVIL, OR STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. THE TRUSSES SHALL BE DESIGNED TO RESIST THE FORCES ACTING ON THEM INCLUDING ALL LIVE, DEAD, AND 7. SPANS ARE BASED ON NO. 2 OR STANDARD GRADE LUMBER. NO. 3 GRADE LUMBER MAY BE USED 8d COMMON 3 WITH APPROPRIATE DESIGN.

FRAMING ROOF PLAN 9. CONTINUOUS HEADER TO STUD, TOE LATERAL LOADS. SUBMIT DRAWINGS TO ARCHITECT SHOWING CHORD FORCES, CHORD SIZES, MATERIAL OF CONSTRUCTION AND BEARING THE SEAL OF THE DESIGN 3-16d OR 4-10d COMMON 16d NAILS STAGGERED @ 6"o.c. BOTH SIDES NAIL ENGINEER. THESE DRAWINGS SHALL SHOW ALL RECOMMENDED CHORD BRACING. THESE DRAWINGS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION IN THE

PLUMBING PLAN 10. CEILING JIOSTS, LAPS OVER CONSTRUCTION AND WILL BE INSPECTED PRIOR TO INSTALLING ROOF DECK FOR CONSTRUCTION OR MATERIAL FLAWS.

MECHANIC AND 3-16d OR 4-10d COMMON PARTITIONS, FACE NAIL

SHEET TITLE 11. CEILING JOISTS TO PARALLEL 8. CONTACT ARCHITECT FOR INSPECTION OF PRE-ENGINEERED WOOD TRUSSES AFTER THEY ARE DELIVERED TO JOB SITE. 8d COMMON OR TWIST STRAP AS 3 RAFTERS, FACE NAIL DETAILED 2 EACH END 9. LAMINATED VENEER LUMBER SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM ALLOWABLE DESIGN STRESS IN BENDING OF 2800 PSI AND MODULUS OF ELASTICITY OF 2,000 Ksi. 12. RAFTER TO PLATE, TOE NAIL 16d COMMON 6" O.C. EDGES AND 12" O.C. 13. STUDS TO SOLE PLATE, END NAIL 6d COMMON INTERMEDIATE 10. METAL CONNECTOR SHALL BE EQUAL THOSE MADE BY THE SIMPSON Co. 14. 1 2" PLYWOOD ROOF SHEATHING 11. IF ALTERED CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED REVIEW WITH ENGINEER PRIOR TO PROCEEDING.

AARB-1:136 12'-7" 13'-8" 3 3 A.5 SHEET 6 OF 6

7'-7" 1 3 3 3 A.5 5 3

EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB

1' FOOTING 12"X20" 3 4 5

8'-8"

25'-11" A.5 #3 BAR EPOXY 6" 1

5 INTO EXIST. 6 FOOTING 1 1 1 @ 32" O.C.

MCFALL RESIDENCE 1

OWNER NAME : Mr. CHACON 2' 4 1

5 5

4 EXINTING WALLS

61'-5"

NAME PROJECT 28'

20'-4" 5

El Paso, TEXAS 79925 5

9328 MCFALL DR. EXINTING WALLS 1

4'-7" 2

5 1

ADDRESS : 15'-3" LEGENDS

10'-8" 0 DEMO FLOOR IDENTIFICATION EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB 27-B DEMOLITION PLAN 0 DEMO CEILING IDENTIFICATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"

DATE: 10'-6" 29' 27'-11" 0 DEMO WALL IDENTIFICATION

22'-9" 16'-9"

27 FOUNDATION PLAN 67'-5" SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" FOUNDATION KEY NOTES DEMOLITION GENERAL NOTES DEMOLITION KEY NOTES 1. IT IS THE OWNER AND THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S JOINT RESPONSIBILITY TO OBTAIN A. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING A GEOTECHNICAL SOIL'S REPORT BEFORE COMMENCING FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION 2. FOUNDATION DESIGN IS BASED ON A SOIL BEARING VALUE OF 1,500 psf WITH THE REMOVE EXISTING WALL FOR NEW OPENING, VERIFY IS NOT A CONDITIONS OF CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY THE BOTTOM OF FOOTINGS TO BE PLACED AT 18" MINIMUM INTO PROPERLY COMPACTED 1 BEARING WALL, IN THIS CASE PROVIDE TEMPORARY SHORING ARCHITECT OR OWNER OF ANY OUTSTANDING FILL. TO INSTALL NEW STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS, AND REPAIR ALL 3. THE SOILS REPORT IS TO BE CONSIDERED A PART OF THESE PLANS AND SHALL BE ADJACENCIES AS TO MEET EXISTING CONDITIONS , SEE NEW DISCREPANCIES WHICH COULD IMPACT COMPLIED WITH THE CONTRACTOR. PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN. CONSTRUCTION COST, MEANS AND OR SCHEDULE. 4. FOUNDATION CONCRETE: PORTLAND CEMENT ASTM C 150, WITH 3,000 psi 28-DAY

REVISIONS : REMOVE GARAGE DOOR AND REPLACED FOR NEW GARAGE 4" CONCRETE STRENGTH SLAB WITH 2 DOOR SELECT BY OWNER, AND REPAIR ALL ADJACENCIES AS B. IF DEMOLITION IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL AN 5. REINFORCING BARS: ASTM A 615, DEFORMED, GRADE 40 FOR #3 REBARS, AND GRADE 60 TO MEET EXISTING CONDITIONS, SEE NEW PROPOSED FLOOR 2x4's WD. STUDS @ 16" o/c W6X6#10 FOR #4 ND LARGER. PLAN. ITEM, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE THE R-13 BATT. INSUL. 1 2" GYP. BD. 6. SLAB-ON-GRADE WITH TURNDOWN FOOTING SHALL BE PLACED MONOLITHICALLY AREA TO PREVIOUS CONDITION, OR REPLACE BETWEEN STUDS WITHOUT CONTRUCTION OR CONTROL JOINTS. REMOVE WINDOW/FRAME AND ALL ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT AND REPAIR ALL ADJACENCIES AS TO MEET EXISTING DAMAGED ITEMS WITH NEW ITEMS TO MATCH 2x4 PLATE w/ 1 2"~ A. BOLTS @ 4'-0" 7. IN THE EVENT FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS ARE CARRIED TO A DEPTH GREATER THEN 3

PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS. REQUIRED. THE ADDITIONAL DEPTH SHALL BE FILLED WITH THE SAME CONCRETE AS CONDITIONS, SEE NEW PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN. EXISTING CONDITIONS.

AGGRESIVELY PURSUED TO THE FULLEST ANY REPRODUCTION OF THESE PRINTS IS STUCCO FINISH, THAT USED FOR FOOTING AT NO ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO THE OWNER. NO

08-20-2017 OVER 12" SHEATING 4" CONC. SLAB UNCONTROLLED FILL WILL BE PERMITTED. REMOVE DOOR/FRAME AND ALL HARDWARE, AND REPAIR ALL C. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL

EXTENT OF THE COPYRIGHT LAW. BOARD 8. THE FOOTING EXCAVATIONS SHALL BE KEPT FREE FROM LOOSE MATERIAL AND ADJACENCIES AS TO MEET EXISTING CONDITIONS, SEE NEW W/6X6 6/6 W.W.M 4

IMPORTANT NOTE: DIMENSIONS OF ANY EXISTING AND NEW WORK

PROJECT No. 17-027 STANDING WATER. SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR MORE INFORMATION CONCERNING PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN.

DESIGNED: CHAIREZ FIN. FLR. AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR

INFORMATION: SOIL PREPERATION.

SCALE: As Noted 4"

BASE FLASHING 9. UNLESS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED OTHERWISE BY THE SOILS REPORT, ALL REQUIRED MIN.

ACCURACY, ANY DIFFERENCES FOUND SHALL BE 8"

BACK FILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO AT LEAST (90%) OF THE MAXIMUM DENSITY REMOVE EXISTING CERAMIC TILE, SEE NEW PROPOSED FLOOR FIN. GR. OBTAINABLE BY THE A.S.T.M. DESIGNATION D-1557 (LATEST EDITION) METHOD OF 5 SUBMITTED TO CONTRACTOR FOR CONSIDERATION PLAN. 1'-8"

COMPACTION. BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. 10. UNLESS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED OTHERWISE BY THE SOILS REPORT, ALL UTILITY

DATE : #3 BAR EPOXY 6" INTO EXIST. TRENCHES SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF 90% RELATIVE DENSITY. 11. FINISH GRADES SHALL BE SLOPED TO DRAIN SURFACE WATER FROM BUILDINGS. REMOVE EXISTING WALL MOUNTED PLUMBING CAP AND D. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY 4-#4 REBAR FOOTING 6 12. PROVIDE MINIMUM CONCRETE COVER FOR REINFORCING BARS AS PER ACI 7.7.1: REPLACED AS SELECT BY OWNER. RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION AND @ 32" O.C. CONCRETE CAST AGAINST EARTH: 3 INCHES SCHEDULING OF CONSTRUCTION WORK, CONCRETE EXPOSED TO EARTH OR WEATHER: 2 INCHES 13. PRESUMPTIVE DESIGN SOIL PARAMETERS AS PER TABLE 1804.2 OF THE IBC 2000: PROVISION AND CONTROL OF ALL MEANS AND 1' A. ALLOW SOIL BEARING PRESS. 1,500 P.S.F. METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION, FIRE PREVENTION, B. EFFECTIVE P.I. 16 COORDINATION, ORDERING, DELIVERY AND 34 SECTION 5 STORAGE OF MATERIALS, REMOVAL OF DEBRIS AND ALL ASPECTS OF JOB SAFETY. 28 SECTION 1 SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" P R O A R Q drafter & design studio 801 MYRTLE SUITE "102", EL PASO TEXAS, 79902 (915) 256-5573, proarq777@att.net SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" E. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY WITH OWNER REPRESENTATIVE THE NEED FOR DUST CONTAINMENT BARRIERS AT CONSTRUCTION /

FOUNDATION AND DEMOLITION OF GYPSUM BOARD WALL SYSTEMS.

DETAILS PLAN SHEET TITLE AARB-1:137 MiTek USA, Inc. 16023 Swingley Ridge Rd Chesterfield, MO 63017 314-434-1200

Re: SYNE-9328 9328 McFall

The truss drawing(s) referenced below have been prepared by MiTek USA, Inc. under my direct supervision based on the parameters provided by El Paso Truss. Pages or sheets covered by this seal: I31070952 thru I31070967 My license renewal date for the state of Texas is March 31, 2018.

Texas COA: F-12513

September 15,2017 Komnick, Chad IMPORTANT NOTE: Truss Engineer's responsibility is solely for design of individual trusses based upon design parameters shown on referenced truss drawings. Parameters have not been verified as appropriate for any use. Any location identification specified is for file reference only and has not been used in preparing design. Suitability of truss designs for any particular building is the responsibility of the building designer, not the Truss Engineer, per ANSI/TPI-1, Chapter 2. AARB-1:138 Job Truss Truss Type Qty Ply 9328 McFall I31070952 SYNE-9328 A1 Common 5 1 Job Reference (optional) El paso truss, El Paso Texas, . 7.640 s Aug 16 2017 MiTek Industries, Inc. Fri Sep 15 11:19:54 2017 Page 1 ID:XEqBKFYfxsKWEe0?8PIIEYydQuK-74z9AvwkI3AiXaCv9?bxdK7o6XEHpYnTXrkEJNydP3J -2-0-0 2-1-15 6-11-4 12-0-11 17-5-15 22-5-9 28-2-8 35-4-10 40-5-9 42-5-0 44-5-0 2-0-0 2-1-15 4-9-5 5-1-7 5-5-4 4-11-10 5-8-15 7-2-2 5-0-15 1-11-7 2-0-0

Scale = 1:74.1

5x5

9 4x4 4x4 8 2x4 10 3x5 3x5 4x4 7 3x6 11 3.00 12 12 6 13 7-9-10

5 3x5 4 5x8

4-3-0 3 2 1 0-9-0

21 20 19 18 17 16 15 6x6 14 3x5 3x5 6x6 4x4 4x4 5x5 4x4 3x5

5-2-7 10-5-8 15-3-2 20-7-6 26-4-9 31-9-8 38-1-1 42-5-0 5-2-7 5-3-1 4-9-10 5-4-3 5-9-3 5-4-15 6-3-9 4-3-15 Plate Offsets (X,Y)-- [3:0-1-12,0-2-8], [9:0-2-8,0-2-9], [11:0-1-0,0-1-12], [14:0-2-4,0-1-8], [15:0-0-0,0-1-12], [16:0-2-8,0-0-4], [17:0-0-0,0-2-0]

LOADING (psf) SPACING- 2-0-0 CSI. DEFL. in (loc) l/defl L/d PLATES GRIP TCLL 20.0 Plate Grip DOL 1.25 TC 0.41 Vert(LL) -0.33 19 >999 360 MT20 197/144 TCDL 10.0 Lumber DOL 1.25 BC 0.71 Vert(CT) -0.67 18-19 >760 240 BCLL 0.0 Rep Stress Incr YES WB 0.92 Horz(CT) 0.19 14 n/a n/a BCDL 10.0 Code IRC2015/TPI2014 (Matrix) Weight: 198 lb FT = 0%

LUMBER- BRACING- TOP CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E TOP CHORD Structural wood sheathing directly applied or 2-11-11 oc purlins, BOT CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E except end verticals. WEBS 2x4 SPF Stud BOT CHORD Rigid ceiling directly applied or 7-7-5 oc bracing. SLIDER Left 2x4 SPF Stud 2-3-3 WEBS 1 Row at midpt 8-17, 9-16

REACTIONS. (lb/size) 2=1813/0-5-8 (min. 0-2-13), 14=1822/0-5-8 (min. 0-2-14) Max Horz 2=124(LC 8) Max Uplift 2=-402(LC 4), 14=-323(LC 5)

FORCES. (lb) - Max. Comp./Max. Ten. - All forces 250 (lb) or less except when shown. TOP CHORD 2-3=-4163/792, 3-4=-4591/823, 4-5=-4457/828, 5-6=-4390/835, 6-7=-3973/757, 7-8=-3294/639, 8-9=-2474/487, 9-10=-2092/392, 10-11=-1300/231 BOT CHORD 2-21=-832/3831, 20-21=-894/4445, 19-20=-804/4200, 18-19=-645/3591, 17-18=-483/2945, 16-17=-277/2126, 15-16=-243/1703, 14-15=-102/610 WEBS 3-21=-42/587, 6-20=-9/272, 6-19=-572/182, 7-19=-92/561, 7-18=-779/227, 8-18=-139/794, 8-17=-1074/292, 9-17=-196/1029, 9-16=-396/131, 10-16=-72/570, 10-15=-1120/197, 11-15=-146/1288, 11-14=-1668/226

NOTES- 1) Unbalanced roof live loads have been considered for this design. 2) Wind: ASCE 7-10; Vult=115mph (3-second gust) Vasd=91mph; TCDL=5.0psf; BCDL=4.8psf; h=15ft; Cat. II; Exp C; enclosed; MWFRS (envelope) gable end zone; cantilever left and right exposed ; end vertical left and right exposed; Lumber DOL=1.25 plate grip DOL=1.25 3) This truss has been designed for a 10.0 psf bottom chord live load nonconcurrent with any other live loads. 4) Provide mechanical connection (by others) of truss to bearing plate capable of withstanding 402 lb uplift at joint 2 and 323 lb uplift at joint 14. 5) This truss is designed in accordance with the 2015 International Residential Code sections R502.11.1 and R802.10.2 and referenced standard ANSI/TPI 1.

LOAD CASE(S) Standard

September 15,2017

WARNING - Verify design parameters and READ NOTES ON THIS AND INCLUDED MITEK REFERENCE PAGE MII-7473 rev. 10/03/2015 BEFORE USE. Design valid for use only with MiTek® connectors. This design is based only upon parameters shown, and is for an individual building component, not a truss system. Before use, the building designer must verify the applicability of design parameters and properly incorporate this design into the overall building design. Bracing indicated is to prevent buckling of individual truss web and/or chord members only. Additional temporary and permanent bracing is always required for stability and to prevent collapse with possible personal injury and property damage. For general guidance regarding the fabrication, storage, delivery, erection and bracing of trusses and truss systems, see ANSI/TPI1 Quality Criteria, DSB-89 and BCSI Building Component 16023 Swingley Ridge Rd Safety Information available from Truss Plate Institute, 218 N. Lee Street, Suite 312, Alexandria, VA 22314. Chesterfield, MO 63017

AARB-1:139 Job Truss Truss Type Qty Ply 9328 McFall I31070953 SYNE-9328 A2 Common 6 1 Job Reference (optional) El paso truss, El Paso Texas, . 7.640 s Aug 16 2017 MiTek Industries, Inc. Fri Sep 15 11:21:35 2017 Page 1 ID:XEqBKFYfxsKWEe0?8PIIEYydQuK-gVZLNS84W5vN96QJZivdDdp1kEivzDnKl2i4M1ydP1k -2-0-0 2-1-15 6-11-4 12-0-11 17-5-15 22-5-9 28-2-8 35-4-10 40-5-9 42-5-0 44-5-0 2-0-0 2-1-15 4-9-5 5-1-7 5-5-4 4-11-10 5-8-15 7-2-2 5-0-15 1-11-7 2-0-0

9 4x4 4x4 8 2x4 10 3x5 3x5 4x4 7 3x6 11 3.00 12 12 6 13 7-9-10

5-2-7 10-5-8 15-3-2 20-7-6 26-4-9 31-9-8 38-1-1 42-5-0 5-2-7 5-3-1 4-9-10 5-4-3 5-9-3 5-4-15 6-3-9 4-3-15 Plate Offsets (X,Y)-- [3:0-1-12,0-2-8], [9:0-2-8,0-2-9], [11:0-1-0,0-1-12], [14:0-2-4,0-1-8], [15:0-0-0,0-1-12], [16:0-2-8,0-0-4], [17:0-0-0,0-2-0]

LOADING (psf) SPACING- 2-0-0 CSI. DEFL. in (loc) l/defl L/d PLATES GRIP TCLL 20.0 Plate Grip DOL 1.25 TC 0.47 Vert(LL) -0.33 19 >999 360 MT20 185/144 TCDL 10.0 Lumber DOL 1.25 BC 0.71 Vert(CT) -0.67 18-19 >760 240 BCLL 0.0 Rep Stress Incr YES WB 0.92 Horz(CT) 0.19 14 n/a n/a BCDL 10.0 Code IRC2015/TPI2014 (Matrix) Weight: 198 lb FT = 0%

LUMBER- BRACING- TOP CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E *Except* TOP CHORD Structural wood sheathing directly applied or 2-5-14 oc purlins, 1-5: 2x4 HF No.1&Btr except end verticals. BOT CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E BOT CHORD Rigid ceiling directly applied or 7-7-5 oc bracing. WEBS 2x4 SPF Stud WEBS 1 Row at midpt 8-17, 9-16 SLIDER Left 2x4 SPF Stud 2-3-3

REACTIONS. (lb/size) 2=1813/0-5-8 (min. 0-2-13), 14=1822/0-5-8 (min. 0-2-14) Max Horz 2=124(LC 8) Max Uplift 2=-402(LC 4), 14=-323(LC 5)

FORCES. (lb) - Max. Comp./Max. Ten. - All forces 250 (lb) or less except when shown. TOP CHORD 2-3=-4163/792, 3-4=-4591/823, 4-5=-4457/828, 5-6=-4390/835, 6-7=-3973/757, 7-8=-3294/639, 8-9=-2474/487, 9-10=-2092/392, 10-11=-1300/231 BOT CHORD 2-21=-832/3831, 20-21=-894/4445, 19-20=-804/4200, 18-19=-645/3591, 17-18=-483/2945, 16-17=-277/2126, 15-16=-243/1703, 14-15=-102/610 WEBS 3-21=-42/587, 6-20=-9/272, 6-19=-572/182, 7-19=-92/561, 7-18=-779/227, 8-18=-139/794, 8-17=-1074/292, 9-17=-196/1029, 9-16=-396/131, 10-16=-72/570, 10-15=-1120/197, 11-15=-146/1288, 11-14=-1668/226

NOTES- 1) Unbalanced roof live loads have been considered for this design. 2) Wind: ASCE 7-10; Vult=115mph (3-second gust) Vasd=91mph; TCDL=5.0psf; BCDL=4.8psf; h=15ft; Cat. II; Exp C; enclosed; MWFRS (envelope) gable end zone; cantilever left and right exposed ; end vertical left and right exposed; Lumber DOL=1.25 plate grip DOL=1.25 3) This truss has been designed for a 10.0 psf bottom chord live load nonconcurrent with any other live loads. 4) Provide mechanical connection (by others) of truss to bearing plate capable of withstanding 402 lb uplift at joint 2 and 323 lb uplift at joint 14. 5) This truss is designed in accordance with the 2015 International Residential Code sections R502.11.1 and R802.10.2 and referenced standard ANSI/TPI 1.

WARNING - Verify design parameters and READ NOTES ON THIS AND INCLUDED MITEK REFERENCE PAGE MII-7473 rev. 10/03/2015 BEFORE USE. Design valid for use only with MiTek® connectors. This design is based only upon parameters shown, and is for an individual building component, not a truss system. Before use, the building designer must verify the applicability of design parameters and properly incorporate this design into the overall building design. Bracing indicated is to prevent buckling of individual truss web and/or chord members only. Additional temporary and permanent bracing is always required for stability and to prevent collapse with possible personal injury and property damage. For general guidance regarding the fabrication, storage, delivery, erection and bracing of trusses and truss systems, see ANSI/TPI1 Quality Criteria, DSB-89 and BCSI Building Component 16023 Swingley Ridge Rd Safety Information available from Truss Plate Institute, 218 N. Lee Street, Suite 312, Alexandria, VA 22314. Chesterfield, MO 63017

AARB-1:140 Job Truss Truss Type Qty Ply 9328 McFall I31070954 SYNE-9328 A3 ROOF SPECIAL 5 1 Job Reference (optional) El paso truss, El Paso Texas 7.640 s Aug 16 2017 MiTek Industries, Inc. Fri Sep 15 11:16:37 2017 Page 1 ID:XEqBKFYfxsKWEe0?8PIIEYydQuK-r9TsTe_RfR2BMcqYnRXjwHT3W62o9TbTDhWIvIydP6O 4-0-0 11-0-8 16-2-0 22-2-8 29-2-3 35-10-10 41-8-4 47-10-15 50-5-0 52-5-0 4-0-0 7-0-9 5-1-8 6-0-8 6-11-11 6-8-7 5-9-10 6-2-10 2-6-1 2-0-0

Scale = 1:89.7

3.00 12 5x6

6 3x6 4x5 5x5 3x5 5 7 4x5 4 3 3x6 4x5 8 9 3x5 7-9-10

3x4 2 2x4 10 1 19 3x5

3-11-2 5x6 11 2-3-0

18 12 13 20

0-9-0 6x8 3x5 16 15 14 17 4x6 21 3x5 3x5 3.00 12 4x5 5x10 M18SHS

8-4-11 16-2-0 22-2-8 31-10-2 31-10-8 38-5-2 44-4-8 50-5-0 8-4-11 7-9-5 6-0-8 9-7-10 0-0-6 6-6-10 5-11-6 6-0-8 Plate Offsets (X,Y)-- [2:0-1-3,0-2-0], [5:0-2-8,0-1-12], [6:0-3-0,0-2-12], [7:0-2-8,0-2-0], [13:0-4-2,0-1-3], [17:0-5-0,0-1-4], [18:0-1-11,0-2-2], [19:0-2-12,0-2-8], [21:0-2-0,0-1-12]

LOADING (psf) SPACING- 2-0-0 CSI. DEFL. in (loc) l/defl L/d PLATES GRIP TCLL 20.0 Plate Grip DOL 1.25 TC 0.69 Vert(LL) -0.22 19-20 >999 360 MT20 197/144 TCDL 10.0 Lumber DOL 1.25 BC 0.54 Vert(CT) -0.49 19-20 >770 240 M18SHS 197/144 BCLL 0.0 Rep Stress Incr YES WB 0.82 Horz(CT) 0.25 17 n/a n/a BCDL 10.0 Code IRC2015/TPI2014 (Matrix) Weight: 198 lb FT = 0%

LUMBER- BRACING- TOP CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E TOP CHORD Structural wood sheathing directly applied or 4-2-4 oc purlins, except BOT CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E end verticals. WEBS 2x4 SPF Stud BOT CHORD Rigid ceiling directly applied or 5-0-7 oc bracing. SLIDER Right 2x4 SPF Stud 1-6-12 WEBS 1 Row at midpt 5-18, 7-17

REACTIONS. (lb/size) 21=862/0-5-8, 13=173/0-5-8, 17=3109/0-3-8 (req. 0-4-14) Max Horz 21=-126(LC 13) Max Uplift 21=-181(LC 4), 13=-204(LC 5), 17=-377(LC 4) Max Grav 21=864(LC 19), 13=417(LC 20), 17=3109(LC 1)

FORCES. (lb) - Max. Comp./Max. Ten. - All forces 250 (lb) or less except when shown. TOP CHORD 2-3=-2218/439, 3-4=-1898/385, 4-5=-1831/396, 7-8=-368/2659, 8-9=-323/1661, 9-10=-336/1636, 10-11=-322/1096, 11-12=-482/611, 12-13=-509/629 BOT CHORD 20-21=-395/1442, 19-20=-541/2409, 18-19=-316/1868, 17-18=-1746/349, 16-17=-1872/388, 15-16=-1306/329, 13-15=-549/461 WEBS 2-21=-1662/459, 2-20=-21/743, 3-20=-313/173, 3-19=-544/221, 5-19=-178/1222, 5-18=-2125/459, 6-18=-419/110, 7-18=-245/1830, 7-17=-2032/327, 8-17=-940/263, 8-16=-86/657, 10-16=-716/198, 10-15=0/476, 11-15=-655/190

NOTES- 1) Unbalanced roof live loads have been considered for this design. 2) Wind: ASCE 7-10; Vult=115mph (3-second gust) Vasd=91mph; TCDL=5.0psf; BCDL=4.8psf; h=15ft; Cat. II; Exp C; enclosed; MWFRS (envelope) gable end zone; cantilever left and right exposed ; end vertical left and right exposed; Lumber DOL=1.25 plate grip DOL=1.25 3) All plates are MT20 plates unless otherwise indicated. 4) This truss has been designed for a 10.0 psf bottom chord live load nonconcurrent with any other live loads. 5) WARNING: Required bearing size at joint(s) 17 greater than input bearing size. 6) Bearing at joint(s) 21 considers parallel to grain value using ANSI/TPI 1 angle to grain formula. Building designer should verify capacity of bearing surface. 7) Provide mechanical connection (by others) of truss to bearing plate capable of withstanding 100 lb uplift at joint(s) except (jt=lb) 21=181, 13=204, 17=377.

WARNING - Verify design parameters and READ NOTES ON THIS AND INCLUDED MITEK REFERENCE PAGE MII-7473 rev. 10/03/2015 BEFORE USE. Design valid for use only with MiTek® connectors. This design is based only upon parameters shown, and is for an individual building component, not a truss system. Before use, the building designer must verify the applicability of design parameters and properly incorporate this design into the overall building design. Bracing indicated is to prevent buckling of individual truss web and/or chord members only. Additional temporary and permanent bracing is always required for stability and to prevent collapse with possible personal injury and property damage. For general guidance regarding the fabrication, storage, delivery, erection and bracing of trusses and truss systems, see ANSI/TPI1 Quality Criteria, DSB-89 and BCSI Building Component 16023 Swingley Ridge Rd Safety Information available from Truss Plate Institute, 218 N. Lee Street, Suite 312, Alexandria, VA 22314. Chesterfield, MO 63017

AARB-1:141 Job Truss Truss Type Qty Ply 9328 McFall I31070955 SYNE-9328 A4 ROOF SPECIAL 3 1 Job Reference (optional) El paso truss, El Paso Texas 7.640 s Aug 16 2017 MiTek Industries, Inc. Fri Sep 15 11:16:38 2017 Page 1 ID:XEqBKFYfxsKWEe0?8PIIEYydQuK-JL1Eh__3QlA2zlPkL82yTV?AWWIJutIcSLGsRkydP6N 3-5-12 8-4-2 12-7-5 16-2-0 22-2-8 27-1-15 32-2-0 3-5-12 4-10-7 4-3-2 3-6-11 6-0-8 4-11-7 5-0-1

4x4 Scale = 1:61.0

7 4x5 4x4 6x6 8 3x5 6 3.00 12 3x4 5 9 4x4 4

3 4x6 7-9-10

3x4 2 12

5-3-12 1 5x12 M18SHS

3-11-2 13 11 2-3-0

4x4 6x10 14 4x4

3.00 12 10 15 5x10 M18SHS 4x6

6-3-1 11-1-8 16-2-0 22-2-8 32-2-0 6-3-1 4-10-7 5-0-9 6-0-8 9-11-8 Plate Offsets (X,Y)-- [2:0-1-7,0-1-8], [3:0-0-7,0-2-0], [6:0-2-8,0-2-8], [7:0-2-0,0-2-8], [8:0-2-8,0-1-12], [10:0-3-2,Edge], [11:0-2-3,0-2-10], [12:0-4-12,0-3-4], [14:0-0-7,0-1-12], [15:0-2-0,0-1-12]

LOADING (psf) SPACING- 2-0-0 CSI. DEFL. in (loc) l/defl L/d PLATES GRIP TCLL 20.0 Plate Grip DOL 1.25 TC 0.93 Vert(LL) -0.46 12-13 >829 360 MT20 197/144 TCDL 10.0 Lumber DOL 1.25 BC 0.91 Vert(CT) -0.93 12-13 >412 240 M18SHS 197/144 BCLL 0.0 Rep Stress Incr YES WB 0.98 Horz(CT) 0.61 10 n/a n/a BCDL 10.0 Code IRC2015/TPI2014 (Matrix) Weight: 135 lb FT = 0%

LUMBER- BRACING- TOP CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E TOP CHORD Structural wood sheathing directly applied or 2-11-13 oc purlins, BOT CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E except end verticals. WEBS 2x4 SPF Stud BOT CHORD Rigid ceiling directly applied or 2-2-0 oc bracing. WEBS 1 Row at midpt 8-10 2 Rows at 1/3 pts 6-11 REACTIONS. (lb/size) 15=1275/0-5-8, 10=1275/0-3-8 Max Horz 15=156(LC 5) Max Uplift 15=-242(LC 4), 10=-182(LC 5)

FORCES. (lb) - Max. Comp./Max. Ten. - All forces 250 (lb) or less except when shown. TOP CHORD 2-3=-3137/600, 3-4=-4592/866, 4-5=-4544/871, 5-6=-5087/920, 6-7=-1867/334, 7-8=-1860/344 BOT CHORD 14-15=-448/1917, 13-14=-781/3917, 12-13=-873/4823, 11-12=-839/5065, 10-11=-229/1088 WEBS 2-15=-2348/513, 2-14=-172/1296, 3-14=-1237/280, 3-13=-48/706, 5-13=-485/102, 5-12=-38/251, 6-12=-373/2373, 6-11=-3645/718, 7-11=-33/531, 8-11=-125/942, 8-10=-1616/298

NOTES- 1) Unbalanced roof live loads have been considered for this design. 2) Wind: ASCE 7-10; Vult=115mph (3-second gust) Vasd=91mph; TCDL=5.0psf; BCDL=4.8psf; h=15ft; Cat. II; Exp C; enclosed; MWFRS (envelope) gable end zone; cantilever left and right exposed ; end vertical left and right exposed; Lumber DOL=1.25 plate grip DOL=1.25 3) All plates are MT20 plates unless otherwise indicated. 4) This truss has been designed for a 10.0 psf bottom chord live load nonconcurrent with any other live loads. 5) Bearing at joint(s) 15, 10 considers parallel to grain value using ANSI/TPI 1 angle to grain formula. Building designer should verify capacity of bearing surface. 6) Provide mechanical connection (by others) of truss to bearing plate capable of withstanding 100 lb uplift at joint(s) except (jt=lb) 15=242, 10=182.

WARNING - Verify design parameters and READ NOTES ON THIS AND INCLUDED MITEK REFERENCE PAGE MII-7473 rev. 10/03/2015 BEFORE USE. Design valid for use only with MiTek® connectors. This design is based only upon parameters shown, and is for an individual building component, not a truss system. Before use, the building designer must verify the applicability of design parameters and properly incorporate this design into the overall building design. Bracing indicated is to prevent buckling of individual truss web and/or chord members only. Additional temporary and permanent bracing is always required for stability and to prevent collapse with possible personal injury and property damage. For general guidance regarding the fabrication, storage, delivery, erection and bracing of trusses and truss systems, see ANSI/TPI1 Quality Criteria, DSB-89 and BCSI Building Component 16023 Swingley Ridge Rd Safety Information available from Truss Plate Institute, 218 N. Lee Street, Suite 312, Alexandria, VA 22314. Chesterfield, MO 63017

AARB-1:142 Job Truss Truss Type Qty Ply 9328 McFall I31070956 SYNE-9328 A5 MONO TRUSS 3 1 Job Reference (optional) El paso truss, El Paso Texas 7.640 s Aug 16 2017 MiTek Industries, Inc. Fri Sep 15 11:16:38 2017 Page 1 ID:XEqBKFYfxsKWEe0?8PIIEYydQuK-JL1Eh__3QlA2zlPkL82yTV?EgWQyuypcSLGsRkydP6N -2-0-0 4-6-15 10-4-0 15-11-8 2-0-0 4-6-15 5-9-1 5-7-8

3x4 Scale = 1:35.5 6

3.00 12 3x5 5 4-8-14

2x4 4 3x4 3

2 0-9-0

8 3x8 3x5 7 4x4

7-4-0 15-11-8 7-4-0 8-7-8 Plate Offsets (X,Y)-- [2:0-3-8,Edge], [7:0-1-12,0-2-0], [8:0-0-8,0-1-8]

LOADING (psf) SPACING- 2-0-0 CSI. DEFL. in (loc) l/defl L/d PLATES GRIP TCLL 20.0 Plate Grip DOL 1.25 TC 0.66 Vert(LL) -0.11 7-8 >999 360 MT20 197/144 TCDL 10.0 Lumber DOL 1.25 BC 0.42 Vert(CT) -0.24 7-8 >807 240 BCLL 0.0 Rep Stress Incr YES WB 0.69 Horz(CT) 0.02 7 n/a n/a BCDL 10.0 Code IRC2015/TPI2014 (Matrix) Weight: 61 lb FT = 0%

LUMBER- BRACING- TOP CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E TOP CHORD Structural wood sheathing directly applied or 5-8-13 oc purlins, except BOT CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E end verticals. WEBS 2x4 SPF Stud BOT CHORD Rigid ceiling directly applied or 10-0-0 oc bracing. SLIDER Left 2x4 SPF Stud 2-3-5

REACTIONS. (lb/size) 2=762/0-3-8, 7=625/0-3-8 Max Horz 2=171(LC 7) Max Uplift 2=-208(LC 4), 7=-143(LC 8)

FORCES. (lb) - Max. Comp./Max. Ten. - All forces 250 (lb) or less except when shown. TOP CHORD 2-3=-1352/276, 3-4=-1309/287, 4-5=-1104/183 BOT CHORD 2-8=-312/1240, 7-8=-183/785 WEBS 5-8=0/483, 5-7=-843/252

NOTES- 1) Wind: ASCE 7-10; Vult=115mph (3-second gust) Vasd=91mph; TCDL=5.0psf; BCDL=4.8psf; h=15ft; Cat. II; Exp C; enclosed; MWFRS (envelope) gable end zone; cantilever left and right exposed ; end vertical left and right exposed; Lumber DOL=1.25 plate grip DOL=1.25 2) This truss has been designed for a 10.0 psf bottom chord live load nonconcurrent with any other live loads. 3) Provide mechanical connection (by others) of truss to bearing plate capable of withstanding 100 lb uplift at joint(s) except (jt=lb) 2=208, 7=143.

WARNING - Verify design parameters and READ NOTES ON THIS AND INCLUDED MITEK REFERENCE PAGE MII-7473 rev. 10/03/2015 BEFORE USE. Design valid for use only with MiTek® connectors. This design is based only upon parameters shown, and is for an individual building component, not a truss system. Before use, the building designer must verify the applicability of design parameters and properly incorporate this design into the overall building design. Bracing indicated is to prevent buckling of individual truss web and/or chord members only. Additional temporary and permanent bracing is always required for stability and to prevent collapse with possible personal injury and property damage. For general guidance regarding the fabrication, storage, delivery, erection and bracing of trusses and truss systems, see ANSI/TPI1 Quality Criteria, DSB-89 and BCSI Building Component 16023 Swingley Ridge Rd Safety Information available from Truss Plate Institute, 218 N. Lee Street, Suite 312, Alexandria, VA 22314. Chesterfield, MO 63017

AARB-1:143 Job Truss Truss Type Qty Ply 9328 McFall I31070957 SYNE-9328 A6 Common 1 1 Job Reference (optional) El paso truss, El Paso Texas, . 7.640 s Aug 16 2017 MiTek Industries, Inc. Fri Sep 15 11:27:30 2017 Page 1 ID:XEqBKFYfxsKWEe0?8PIIEYydQuK-noWYtqRmvAd0Ff3Ysmnt6U0dpLsjemuaNnCMKyydOyB -2-0-0 4-4-6 10-6-3 18-0-8 25-2-10 30-11-7 38-0-0 44-2-10 46-3-0 48-3-0 2-0-0 4-4-6 6-1-13 7-6-5 7-2-2 5-8-13 7-0-9 6-2-11 2-0-6 2-0-0

Scale = 1:80.7

6 3.00 12 3x6 3x6 3x5 5 7 4x6 4 3x5 3x6 3 8 3x4 9 7-9-10

3x6 2 1 10 5x8 3-3-8

11 12 13

0-9-0 19 18 17 16 15 14 20 7x6 4x5 5x5 4x5 5x10 M18SHS 3x5 4x5 5x10 M18SHS

7-7-11 14-5-8 21-7-8 27-11-1 34-1-0 40-1-6 46-3-0 7-7-11 6-9-12 7-2-1 6-3-9 6-1-15 6-0-5 6-1-10 Plate Offsets (X,Y)-- [3:0-1-7,0-1-8], [6:0-2-13,0-2-8], [11:0-1-8,0-2-8], [12:Edge,0-6-14], [16:0-5-0,0-0-4], [18:0-2-8,0-0-4]

LOADING (psf) SPACING- 2-0-0 CSI. DEFL. in (loc) l/defl L/d PLATES GRIP TCLL 20.0 Plate Grip DOL 1.25 TC 0.81 Vert(LL) -0.41 15-16 >999 360 MT20 185/144 TCDL 10.0 Lumber DOL 1.25 BC 0.79 Vert(CT) -0.84 15-16 >662 240 M18SHS 197/144 BCLL 0.0 Rep Stress Incr YES WB 0.97 Horz(CT) 0.24 12 n/a n/a BCDL 10.0 Code IRC2015/TPI2014 (Matrix) Weight: 200 lb FT = 0%

LUMBER- BRACING- TOP CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E *Except* TOP CHORD Structural wood sheathing directly applied or 2-2-0 oc purlins, except 9-13: 2x4 HF No.1&Btr end verticals. BOT CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E BOT CHORD Rigid ceiling directly applied or 7-9-4 oc bracing. WEBS 2x4 SPF Stud WEBS 1 Row at midpt 6-18, 3-20 SLIDER Right 2x4 SPF Stud 2-1-9

REACTIONS. (lb/size) 20=1975/0-5-8 (min. 0-3-2), 12=1966/0-5-8 (min. 0-3-1) Max Horz 20=-121(LC 13) Max Uplift 20=-363(LC 4), 12=-420(LC 5)

FORCES. (lb) - Max. Comp./Max. Ten. - All forces 250 (lb) or less except when shown. TOP CHORD 3-4=-2437/352, 4-5=-2357/360, 5-6=-2858/483, 6-7=-3316/606, 7-8=-4180/766, 8-9=-4785/869, 9-10=-4851/860, 10-11=-5166/899, 11-12=-4552/857, 2-20=-276/141 BOT CHORD 19-20=-230/1705, 18-19=-323/2643, 17-18=-246/2705, 16-17=-498/3706, 15-16=-681/4416, 14-15=-856/4981, 12-14=-770/4190 WEBS 3-19=-84/995, 5-19=-708/153, 5-18=-80/312, 6-17=-211/1106, 7-17=-1023/305, 7-16=-132/745, 8-16=-689/221, 8-15=-50/433, 10-15=-422/184, 11-14=-42/777, 3-20=-2334/367

NOTES- 1) Unbalanced roof live loads have been considered for this design. 2) Wind: ASCE 7-10; Vult=115mph (3-second gust) Vasd=91mph; TCDL=5.0psf; BCDL=4.8psf; h=15ft; Cat. II; Exp C; enclosed; MWFRS (envelope) gable end zone; cantilever left and right exposed ; end vertical left and right exposed; Lumber DOL=1.25 plate grip DOL=1.25 3) All plates are MT20 plates unless otherwise indicated. 4) This truss has been designed for a 10.0 psf bottom chord live load nonconcurrent with any other live loads. 5) Provide mechanical connection (by others) of truss to bearing plate capable of withstanding 363 lb uplift at joint 20 and 420 lb uplift at joint 12. 6) This truss is designed in accordance with the 2015 International Residential Code sections R502.11.1 and R802.10.2 and referenced standard ANSI/TPI 1.

WARNING - Verify design parameters and READ NOTES ON THIS AND INCLUDED MITEK REFERENCE PAGE MII-7473 rev. 10/03/2015 BEFORE USE. Design valid for use only with MiTek® connectors. This design is based only upon parameters shown, and is for an individual building component, not a truss system. Before use, the building designer must verify the applicability of design parameters and properly incorporate this design into the overall building design. Bracing indicated is to prevent buckling of individual truss web and/or chord members only. Additional temporary and permanent bracing is always required for stability and to prevent collapse with possible personal injury and property damage. For general guidance regarding the fabrication, storage, delivery, erection and bracing of trusses and truss systems, see ANSI/TPI1 Quality Criteria, DSB-89 and BCSI Building Component 16023 Swingley Ridge Rd Safety Information available from Truss Plate Institute, 218 N. Lee Street, Suite 312, Alexandria, VA 22314. Chesterfield, MO 63017

AARB-1:144 Job Truss Truss Type Qty Ply 9328 McFall I31070958 SYNE-9328 A7 Common 6 1 Job Reference (optional) El paso truss, El Paso Texas 7.640 s Aug 16 2017 MiTek Industries, Inc. Fri Sep 15 11:16:40 2017 Page 1 ID:XEqBKFYfxsKWEe0?8PIIEYydQuK-Gk9_6g0KyMQmD3Z7SZ5QYw5daK6?MtrvvflyVdydP6L -2-0-0 4-2-6 9-8-0 18-0-8 25-2-10 30-11-7 36-1-15 38-8-0 40-8-0 2-0-0 4-2-6 5-5-9 8-4-8 7-2-2 5-8-13 5-2-8 2-6-1 2-0-0

Scale = 1:70.3

5x10 M18SHS

3x5 3.00 12 3x5 3x6 7 3x6 5 4x5 3x5 4 8 9 2x4 3 4x5 7-9-10

2 10 2x4 1 11 12 3-3-8

2-7-12 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 4x6 4x4 5x5 5x5 3x5 4x4 4x5

7-6-5 14-5-8 21-7-8 27-11-1 33-2-0 38-8-0 7-6-5 6-11-3 7-2-1 6-3-9 5-2-15 5-6-0 Plate Offsets (X,Y)-- [3:0-1-3,0-1-12], [7:0-0-8,0-1-8], [10:0-0-15,0-1-12], [13:0-2-8,0-1-12], [14:0-0-0,0-2-0], [16:0-2-8,0-0-4], [17:0-2-8,0-0-4], [19:0-3-0,0-1-12]

LOADING (psf) SPACING- 2-0-0 CSI. DEFL. in (loc) l/defl L/d PLATES GRIP TCLL 20.0 Plate Grip DOL 1.25 TC 0.51 Vert(LL) -0.12 16 >999 360 MT20 197/144 TCDL 10.0 Lumber DOL 1.25 BC 0.45 Vert(CT) -0.28 16-17 >999 240 M18SHS 197/144 BCLL 0.0 Rep Stress Incr YES WB 0.59 Horz(CT) 0.11 13 n/a n/a BCDL 10.0 Code IRC2015/TPI2014 (Matrix) Weight: 177 lb FT = 0%

LUMBER- BRACING- TOP CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E TOP CHORD Structural wood sheathing directly applied or 4-2-4 oc purlins, except BOT CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E end verticals. WEBS 2x4 SPF Stud BOT CHORD Rigid ceiling directly applied or 10-0-0 oc bracing. WEBS 1 Row at midpt 3-19 REACTIONS. (lb/size) 19=1666/0-5-8, 13=1666/0-5-8 Max Horz 19=-41(LC 6) Max Uplift 19=-337(LC 4), 13=-352(LC 5)

FORCES. (lb) - Max. Comp./Max. Ten. - All forces 250 (lb) or less except when shown. TOP CHORD 3-4=-1947/312, 4-5=-1876/320, 5-6=-2166/358, 6-7=-2281/412, 7-8=-2339/434, 8-9=-2414/422, 9-10=-1939/332, 2-19=-285/146 BOT CHORD 18-19=-202/1338, 17-18=-282/2049, 16-17=-207/1973, 15-16=-342/2338, 14-15=-351/2167, 13-14=-198/1106 WEBS 3-18=-66/823, 5-18=-526/132, 6-17=-39/287, 6-16=-99/541, 7-16=-415/186, 9-14=-709/155, 10-14=-123/1047, 3-19=-1853/317, 10-13=-1774/331

NOTES- 1) Unbalanced roof live loads have been considered for this design. 2) Wind: ASCE 7-10; Vult=115mph (3-second gust) Vasd=91mph; TCDL=5.0psf; BCDL=4.8psf; h=15ft; Cat. II; Exp C; enclosed; MWFRS (envelope) gable end zone; cantilever left and right exposed ; end vertical left and right exposed; Lumber DOL=1.25 plate grip DOL=1.25 3) All plates are MT20 plates unless otherwise indicated. 4) This truss has been designed for a 10.0 psf bottom chord live load nonconcurrent with any other live loads. 5) Provide mechanical connection (by others) of truss to bearing plate capable of withstanding 100 lb uplift at joint(s) except (jt=lb) 19=337, 13=352.

WARNING - Verify design parameters and READ NOTES ON THIS AND INCLUDED MITEK REFERENCE PAGE MII-7473 rev. 10/03/2015 BEFORE USE. Design valid for use only with MiTek® connectors. This design is based only upon parameters shown, and is for an individual building component, not a truss system. Before use, the building designer must verify the applicability of design parameters and properly incorporate this design into the overall building design. Bracing indicated is to prevent buckling of individual truss web and/or chord members only. Additional temporary and permanent bracing is always required for stability and to prevent collapse with possible personal injury and property damage. For general guidance regarding the fabrication, storage, delivery, erection and bracing of trusses and truss systems, see ANSI/TPI1 Quality Criteria, DSB-89 and BCSI Building Component 16023 Swingley Ridge Rd Safety Information available from Truss Plate Institute, 218 N. Lee Street, Suite 312, Alexandria, VA 22314. Chesterfield, MO 63017

AARB-1:145 Job Truss Truss Type Qty Ply 9328 McFall I31070959 SYNE-9328 A8 Common 7 1 Job Reference (optional) El paso truss, El Paso Texas, . 7.640 s Aug 16 2017 MiTek Industries, Inc. Fri Sep 15 11:30:15 2017 Page 1 ID:XEqBKFYfxsKWEe0?8PIIEYydQuK-RY_wWFRG2sQbY0AG1wEZIHLu5sAFpOetKyfacuydOvc -2-0-0 3-0-8 6-0-9 11-8-10 18-0-8 25-2-10 30-11-7 37-3-9 42-10-2 46-3-0 48-3-0 2-0-0 3-0-8 3-0-0 5-8-2 6-3-14 7-2-2 5-8-13 6-4-2 5-6-8 3-4-14 2-0-0

Scale = 1:80.2

3.00 12 5x5

3x6 6 3x5 5 3x6 4 7 4x5 3x5 3x6 3 8 4x5 9 3x5 7-9-10

2 1 10 5x8 11 3x5 3-3-8

12 13

0-9-0 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 21 8x8 4x5 3x6 5x5 4x5 5x10 M18SHS 3x5 4x5 3x5

3-1-7 9-6-7 15-10-10 21-7-8 27-11-1 34-1-0 39-11-4 46-3-0 3-1-7 6-5-0 6-4-3 5-8-14 6-3-9 6-1-15 5-10-4 6-3-12 Plate Offsets (X,Y)-- [2:0-2-8,0-1-8], [6:0-2-8,0-2-9], [11:0-1-8,0-2-8], [12:0-3-8,Edge], [16:0-5-0,0-0-4], [18:0-2-8,0-0-8], [20:0-1-0,0-1-8]

LOADING (psf) SPACING- 2-0-0 CSI. DEFL. in (loc) l/defl L/d PLATES GRIP TCLL 20.0 Plate Grip DOL 1.25 TC 0.49 Vert(LL) -0.42 15-16 >999 360 MT20 197/144 TCDL 10.0 Lumber DOL 1.25 BC 0.79 Vert(CT) -0.85 15-16 >652 240 M18SHS 197/144 BCLL 0.0 Rep Stress Incr YES WB 0.97 Horz(CT) 0.24 12 n/a n/a BCDL 10.0 Code IRC2015/TPI2014 (Matrix) Weight: 205 lb FT = 0%

LUMBER- BRACING- TOP CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E TOP CHORD Structural wood sheathing directly applied or 2-8-8 oc purlins, except BOT CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E end verticals. WEBS 2x4 SPF Stud BOT CHORD Rigid ceiling directly applied or 7-8-15 oc bracing. SLIDER Right 2x4 SPF Stud 3-6-10

REACTIONS. (lb/size) 21=1975/0-5-8 (min. 0-3-2), 12=1966/0-5-8 (min. 0-3-1) Max Horz 21=-121(LC 13) Max Uplift 21=-363(LC 4), 12=-420(LC 5)

FORCES. (lb) - Max. Comp./Max. Ten. - All forces 250 (lb) or less except when shown. TOP CHORD 2-3=-1392/204, 3-4=-2656/402, 4-5=-2852/484, 5-6=-2768/498, 6-7=-3313/608, 7-8=-4178/764, 8-9=-4798/876, 9-10=-4854/868, 10-11=-5200/909, 11-12=-5146/948, 2-21=-1946/364 BOT CHORD 19-20=-272/2066, 18-19=-312/2695, 17-18=-243/2703, 16-17=-499/3708, 15-16=-678/4409, 14-15=-837/4943, 12-14=-861/4833 WEBS 2-20=-217/1838, 3-20=-1437/249, 3-19=-70/745, 4-19=-470/126, 4-18=-154/253, 6-18=-90/254, 6-17=-221/1092, 7-17=-1030/305, 7-16=-126/742, 8-16=-678/218, 8-15=-63/459, 10-15=-391/168

NOTES- 1) Unbalanced roof live loads have been considered for this design. 2) Wind: ASCE 7-10; Vult=115mph (3-second gust) Vasd=91mph; TCDL=5.0psf; BCDL=4.8psf; h=15ft; Cat. II; Exp C; enclosed; MWFRS (envelope) gable end zone; cantilever left and right exposed ; end vertical left and right exposed; Lumber DOL=1.25 plate grip DOL=1.25 3) All plates are MT20 plates unless otherwise indicated. 4) This truss has been designed for a 10.0 psf bottom chord live load nonconcurrent with any other live loads. 5) Provide mechanical connection (by others) of truss to bearing plate capable of withstanding 363 lb uplift at joint 21 and 420 lb uplift at joint 12. 6) This truss is designed in accordance with the 2015 International Residential Code sections R502.11.1 and R802.10.2 and referenced standard ANSI/TPI 1.

WARNING - Verify design parameters and READ NOTES ON THIS AND INCLUDED MITEK REFERENCE PAGE MII-7473 rev. 10/03/2015 BEFORE USE. Design valid for use only with MiTek® connectors. This design is based only upon parameters shown, and is for an individual building component, not a truss system. Before use, the building designer must verify the applicability of design parameters and properly incorporate this design into the overall building design. Bracing indicated is to prevent buckling of individual truss web and/or chord members only. Additional temporary and permanent bracing is always required for stability and to prevent collapse with possible personal injury and property damage. For general guidance regarding the fabrication, storage, delivery, erection and bracing of trusses and truss systems, see ANSI/TPI1 Quality Criteria, DSB-89 and BCSI Building Component 16023 Swingley Ridge Rd Safety Information available from Truss Plate Institute, 218 N. Lee Street, Suite 312, Alexandria, VA 22314. Chesterfield, MO 63017

AARB-1:146 Job Truss Truss Type Qty Ply 9328 McFall I31070960 SYNE-9328 AG COMMON SUPPORTED GAB 1 1 Job Reference (optional) El paso truss, El Paso Texas 7.640 s Aug 16 2017 MiTek Industries, Inc. Fri Sep 15 11:16:42 2017 Page 1 ID:XEqBKFYfxsKWEe0?8PIIEYydQuK-C7GlWM1aU_gUSNjVa_7udLA117rqpuaCNzE3aWydP6J -2-0-0 6-2-8 8-2-8 10-2-8 12-2-8 14-2-8 16-2-8 18-2-8 20-2-8 22-2-8 24-2-8 26-2-8 28-2-8 30-2-8 32-2-8 34-2-8 36-2-8 38-2-8 40-2-8 42-5-0 44-5-0 2-0-0 6-2-8 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-2-8 2-0-0

Scale = 1:80.5

14 15 16 17 18 3x6 19 13 12 20 3x6 11 21 10 22 23 5x8 9 8 24 7 25 7-6-0

3x4 6 5 3x4 4

3x8 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 5x5 5x5

6-2-8 8-2-8 10-2-8 12-2-8 14-2-8 16-2-8 18-2-8 20-2-8 22-2-8 24-2-8 26-2-8 28-2-8 30-2-8 32-2-8 34-2-8 36-2-8 38-2-8 40-2-8 42-5-0 6-2-8 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-2-8 Plate Offsets (X,Y)-- [2:0-3-8,Edge], [23:0-5-3,0-0-0], [24:0-5-7,0-0-0], [32:0-2-8,0-3-0], [38:0-2-8,0-3-0]

LOADING (psf) SPACING- 2-0-0 CSI. DEFL. in (loc) l/defl L/d PLATES GRIP TCLL 20.0 Plate Grip DOL 1.25 TC 0.25 Vert(LL) -0.02 25 n/r 180 MT20 185/144 TCDL 10.0 Lumber DOL 1.25 BC 0.17 Vert(CT) -0.04 24-25 n/r 80 BCLL 0.0 Rep Stress Incr YES WB 0.13 Horz(CT) -0.00 26 n/a n/a BCDL 10.0 Code IRC2015/TPI2014 (Matrix) Weight: 207 lb FT = 0%

LUMBER- BRACING- TOP CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E TOP CHORD Structural wood sheathing directly applied or 6-0-0 oc purlins, except BOT CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E *Except* end verticals. 2-38: 2x4 HF No.1&Btr BOT CHORD Rigid ceiling directly applied or 6-0-0 oc bracing. WEBS 2x4 SPF Stud OTHERS 2x4 SPF Stud

REACTIONS. All bearings 42-5-0. (lb) - Max Horz 2=121(LC 12) Max Uplift All uplift 100 lb or less at joint(s) 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27 except 26=-132(LC 5), 2=-108(LC 4), 44=-117(LC 8) Max Grav All reactions 250 lb or less at joint(s) 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27 except 26=266(LC 1), 2=353(LC 19), 44=478(LC 1)

FORCES. (lb) - Max. Comp./Max. Ten. - All forces 250 (lb) or less except when shown. WEBS 4-44=-341/156

NOTES- 1) Unbalanced roof live loads have been considered for this design. 2) Wind: ASCE 7-10; Vult=115mph (3-second gust) Vasd=91mph; TCDL=5.0psf; BCDL=4.8psf; h=15ft; Cat. II; Exp C; enclosed; MWFRS (envelope) gable end zone; cantilever left and right exposed ; end vertical left and right exposed; Lumber DOL=1.25 plate grip DOL=1.25 3) Truss designed for wind loads in the plane of the truss only. For studs exposed to wind (normal to the face), see Standard Industry Gable End Details as applicable, or consult qualified building designer as per ANSI/TPI 1. 4) All plates are 2x4 MT20 unless otherwise indicated. 5) Gable requires continuous bottom chord bearing. 6) Gable studs spaced at 2-0-0 oc. 7) This truss has been designed for a 10.0 psf bottom chord live load nonconcurrent with any other live loads. 8) Solid blocking is required on both sides of the truss at joint(s), 2. 9) Provide mechanical connection (by others) of truss to bearing plate capable of withstanding 100 lb uplift at joint(s) 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27 except (jt=lb) 26=132, 2=108, 44=117.

WARNING - Verify design parameters and READ NOTES ON THIS AND INCLUDED MITEK REFERENCE PAGE MII-7473 rev. 10/03/2015 BEFORE USE. Design valid for use only with MiTek® connectors. This design is based only upon parameters shown, and is for an individual building component, not a truss system. Before use, the building designer must verify the applicability of design parameters and properly incorporate this design into the overall building design. Bracing indicated is to prevent buckling of individual truss web and/or chord members only. Additional temporary and permanent bracing is always required for stability and to prevent collapse with possible personal injury and property damage. For general guidance regarding the fabrication, storage, delivery, erection and bracing of trusses and truss systems, see ANSI/TPI1 Quality Criteria, DSB-89 and BCSI Building Component 16023 Swingley Ridge Rd Safety Information available from Truss Plate Institute, 218 N. Lee Street, Suite 312, Alexandria, VA 22314. Chesterfield, MO 63017

AARB-1:147 Job Truss Truss Type Qty Ply 9328 McFall I31070961 SYNE-9328 AG1 MONOPITCH SUPPORTED 1 1 Job Reference (optional) El paso truss, El Paso Texas 7.640 s Aug 16 2017 MiTek Industries, Inc. Fri Sep 15 11:16:43 2017 Page 1 ID:XEqBKFYfxsKWEe0?8PIIEYydQuK-gJq7ki2CFHoL4XHi7ie7AYjA7XBfYN_Mcdzd6yydP6I -2-0-0 6-5-8 8-5-8 10-5-8 12-5-8 14-5-8 2-0-0 6-5-8 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0

2x4 Scale: 3/8"=1' 2x4 8 9 2x4 3.00 12 7 2x4 6 2x4 5 3x4 4-0-12

3x4 3 4 4x10 2 0-9-0

3x4 14 13 12 11 10 2x4 2x4 2x4 2x4 2x4

6-5-8 8-5-8 10-5-8 12-5-8 14-5-8 6-5-8 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 Plate Offsets (X,Y)-- [2:0-2-8,0-2-7]

LOADING (psf) SPACING- 2-0-0 CSI. DEFL. in (loc) l/defl L/d PLATES GRIP TCLL 20.0 Plate Grip DOL 1.25 TC 0.36 Vert(LL) 0.02 1 n/r 180 MT20 197/144 TCDL 10.0 Lumber DOL 1.25 BC 0.13 Vert(CT) 0.00 1 n/r 80 BCLL 0.0 Rep Stress Incr YES WB 0.06 Horz(CT) -0.00 10 n/a n/a BCDL 10.0 Code IRC2015/TPI2014 (Matrix) Weight: 57 lb FT = 0%

LUMBER- BRACING- TOP CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E TOP CHORD Structural wood sheathing directly applied or 6-0-0 oc purlins, except BOT CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E end verticals. WEBS 2x4 SPF Stud BOT CHORD Rigid ceiling directly applied or 10-0-0 oc bracing. OTHERS 2x4 SPF Stud SLIDER Left 2x4 SPF Stud 2-7-14

REACTIONS. All bearings 14-5-8. (lb) - Max Horz 2=147(LC 7) Max Uplift All uplift 100 lb or less at joint(s) 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 except 2=-169(LC 4) Max Grav All reactions 250 lb or less at joint(s) 10, 11, 12, 13 except 2=413(LC 1), 14=371(LC 1)

FORCES. (lb) - Max. Comp./Max. Ten. - All forces 250 (lb) or less except when shown. WEBS 5-14=-260/116

NOTES- 1) Wind: ASCE 7-10; Vult=115mph (3-second gust) Vasd=91mph; TCDL=5.0psf; BCDL=4.8psf; h=15ft; Cat. II; Exp C; enclosed; MWFRS (envelope) gable end zone; cantilever left and right exposed ; end vertical left and right exposed; Lumber DOL=1.25 plate grip DOL=1.25 2) Truss designed for wind loads in the plane of the truss only. For studs exposed to wind (normal to the face), see Standard Industry Gable End Details as applicable, or consult qualified building designer as per ANSI/TPI 1. 3) Gable requires continuous bottom chord bearing. 4) Gable studs spaced at 2-0-0 oc. 5) This truss has been designed for a 10.0 psf bottom chord live load nonconcurrent with any other live loads. 6) Provide mechanical connection (by others) of truss to bearing plate capable of withstanding 100 lb uplift at joint(s) 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 except (jt=lb) 2=169.

WARNING - Verify design parameters and READ NOTES ON THIS AND INCLUDED MITEK REFERENCE PAGE MII-7473 rev. 10/03/2015 BEFORE USE. Design valid for use only with MiTek® connectors. This design is based only upon parameters shown, and is for an individual building component, not a truss system. Before use, the building designer must verify the applicability of design parameters and properly incorporate this design into the overall building design. Bracing indicated is to prevent buckling of individual truss web and/or chord members only. Additional temporary and permanent bracing is always required for stability and to prevent collapse with possible personal injury and property damage. For general guidance regarding the fabrication, storage, delivery, erection and bracing of trusses and truss systems, see ANSI/TPI1 Quality Criteria, DSB-89 and BCSI Building Component 16023 Swingley Ridge Rd Safety Information available from Truss Plate Institute, 218 N. Lee Street, Suite 312, Alexandria, VA 22314. Chesterfield, MO 63017

AARB-1:148 Job Truss Truss Type Qty Ply 9328 McFall I31070962 SYNE-9328 AG2 MONOPITCH SUPPORTED 1 1 Job Reference (optional) El paso truss, El Paso Texas 7.640 s Aug 16 2017 MiTek Industries, Inc. Fri Sep 15 11:16:43 2017 Page 1 ID:XEqBKFYfxsKWEe0?8PIIEYydQuK-gJq7ki2CFHoL4XHi7ie7AYjC5XARYMoMcdzd6yydP6I -2-0-0 6-0-8 8-0-8 2-0-0 6-0-8 2-0-0

Scale = 1:19.2 2x4 5 4 2x4 3.00 12

3x4 3 3x4 2-5-8

7 6 3x8 2x4 2x4

6-0-8 8-0-8 6-0-8 2-0-0 Plate Offsets (X,Y)-- [2:0-3-4,0-0-3]

LOADING (psf) SPACING- 2-0-0 CSI. DEFL. in (loc) l/defl L/d PLATES GRIP TCLL 20.0 Plate Grip DOL 1.25 TC 0.23 Vert(LL) 0.00 1 n/r 180 MT20 197/144 TCDL 10.0 Lumber DOL 1.25 BC 0.21 Vert(CT) 0.01 1 n/r 80 BCLL 0.0 Rep Stress Incr YES WB 0.07 Horz(CT) -0.00 6 n/a n/a BCDL 10.0 Code IRC2015/TPI2014 (Matrix) Weight: 28 lb FT = 0%

LUMBER- BRACING- TOP CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E TOP CHORD Structural wood sheathing directly applied or 6-0-0 oc purlins, except BOT CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E end verticals. WEBS 2x4 SPF Stud BOT CHORD Rigid ceiling directly applied or 10-0-0 oc bracing. OTHERS 2x4 SPF Stud

REACTIONS. (lb/size) 2=348/8-0-8, 6=-44/8-0-8, 7=450/8-0-8 Max Horz 2=83(LC 5) Max Uplift 2=-131(LC 4), 6=-48(LC 3), 7=-101(LC 8) Max Grav 2=348(LC 1), 6=10(LC 8), 7=450(LC 1)

FORCES. (lb) - Max. Comp./Max. Ten. - All forces 250 (lb) or less except when shown. WEBS 4-7=-320/163

NOTES- 1) Wind: ASCE 7-10; Vult=115mph (3-second gust) Vasd=91mph; TCDL=5.0psf; BCDL=4.8psf; h=15ft; Cat. II; Exp C; enclosed; MWFRS (envelope) gable end zone; cantilever left and right exposed ; end vertical left and right exposed; Lumber DOL=1.25 plate grip DOL=1.25 2) Truss designed for wind loads in the plane of the truss only. For studs exposed to wind (normal to the face), see Standard Industry Gable End Details as applicable, or consult qualified building designer as per ANSI/TPI 1. 3) Gable requires continuous bottom chord bearing. 4) Gable studs spaced at 2-0-0 oc. 5) This truss has been designed for a 10.0 psf bottom chord live load nonconcurrent with any other live loads. 6) Provide mechanical connection (by others) of truss to bearing plate capable of withstanding 100 lb uplift at joint(s) 6 except (jt=lb) 2=131 , 7=101. 7) Beveled plate or shim required to provide full bearing surface with truss chord at joint(s) 2.

WARNING - Verify design parameters and READ NOTES ON THIS AND INCLUDED MITEK REFERENCE PAGE MII-7473 rev. 10/03/2015 BEFORE USE. Design valid for use only with MiTek® connectors. This design is based only upon parameters shown, and is for an individual building component, not a truss system. Before use, the building designer must verify the applicability of design parameters and properly incorporate this design into the overall building design. Bracing indicated is to prevent buckling of individual truss web and/or chord members only. Additional temporary and permanent bracing is always required for stability and to prevent collapse with possible personal injury and property damage. For general guidance regarding the fabrication, storage, delivery, erection and bracing of trusses and truss systems, see ANSI/TPI1 Quality Criteria, DSB-89 and BCSI Building Component 16023 Swingley Ridge Rd Safety Information available from Truss Plate Institute, 218 N. Lee Street, Suite 312, Alexandria, VA 22314. Chesterfield, MO 63017

AARB-1:149 Job Truss Truss Type Qty Ply 9328 McFall I31070963 SYNE-9328 AG3 MONOPITCH SUPPORTED 1 1 Job Reference (optional) El paso truss, El Paso Texas 7.640 s Aug 16 2017 MiTek Industries, Inc. Fri Sep 15 11:16:44 2017 Page 1 ID:XEqBKFYfxsKWEe0?8PIIEYydQuK-8VOVx13q0bwCigsuhP9MjmFMrxWgHp2VqHjAeOydP6H -2-0-0 6-0-8 8-0-8 2-0-0 6-0-8 2-0-0

6-0-8 8-0-8 6-0-8 2-0-0 Plate Offsets (X,Y)-- [2:0-3-4,0-0-3]

LOADING (psf) SPACING- 2-0-0 CSI. DEFL. in (loc) l/defl L/d PLATES GRIP TCLL 20.0 Plate Grip DOL 1.25 TC 0.23 Vert(LL) 0.00 1 n/r 180 MT20 197/144 TCDL 10.0 Lumber DOL 1.25 BC 0.21 Vert(CT) 0.01 1 n/r 80 BCLL 0.0 Rep Stress Incr YES WB 0.07 Horz(CT) -0.00 6 n/a n/a BCDL 10.0 Code IRC2015/TPI2014 (Matrix) Weight: 28 lb FT = 0%

LUMBER- BRACING- TOP CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E TOP CHORD Structural wood sheathing directly applied or 6-0-0 oc purlins, except BOT CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E end verticals. WEBS 2x4 SPF Stud BOT CHORD Rigid ceiling directly applied or 10-0-0 oc bracing. OTHERS 2x4 SPF Stud

REACTIONS. (lb/size) 2=348/8-0-8, 6=-44/8-0-8, 7=450/8-0-8 Max Horz 2=83(LC 5) Max Uplift 2=-131(LC 4), 6=-48(LC 3), 7=-101(LC 8) Max Grav 2=348(LC 1), 6=10(LC 8), 7=450(LC 1)

FORCES. (lb) - Max. Comp./Max. Ten. - All forces 250 (lb) or less except when shown. WEBS 4-7=-320/163

NOTES- 1) Wind: ASCE 7-10; Vult=115mph (3-second gust) Vasd=91mph; TCDL=5.0psf; BCDL=4.8psf; h=15ft; Cat. II; Exp C; enclosed; MWFRS (envelope) gable end zone; cantilever left and right exposed ; end vertical left and right exposed; Lumber DOL=1.25 plate grip DOL=1.25 2) Truss designed for wind loads in the plane of the truss only. For studs exposed to wind (normal to the face), see Standard Industry Gable End Details as applicable, or consult qualified building designer as per ANSI/TPI 1. 3) Gable requires continuous bottom chord bearing. 4) Gable studs spaced at 2-0-0 oc. 5) This truss has been designed for a 10.0 psf bottom chord live load nonconcurrent with any other live loads. 6) Provide mechanical connection (by others) of truss to bearing plate capable of withstanding 100 lb uplift at joint(s) 6 except (jt=lb) 2=131 , 7=101. 7) Beveled plate or shim required to provide full bearing surface with truss chord at joint(s) 2.

WARNING - Verify design parameters and READ NOTES ON THIS AND INCLUDED MITEK REFERENCE PAGE MII-7473 rev. 10/03/2015 BEFORE USE. Design valid for use only with MiTek® connectors. This design is based only upon parameters shown, and is for an individual building component, not a truss system. Before use, the building designer must verify the applicability of design parameters and properly incorporate this design into the overall building design. Bracing indicated is to prevent buckling of individual truss web and/or chord members only. Additional temporary and permanent bracing is always required for stability and to prevent collapse with possible personal injury and property damage. For general guidance regarding the fabrication, storage, delivery, erection and bracing of trusses and truss systems, see ANSI/TPI1 Quality Criteria, DSB-89 and BCSI Building Component 16023 Swingley Ridge Rd Safety Information available from Truss Plate Institute, 218 N. Lee Street, Suite 312, Alexandria, VA 22314. Chesterfield, MO 63017

AARB-1:150 Job Truss Truss Type Qty Ply 9328 McFall I31070964 SYNE-9328 AG4 GABLE 1 1 Job Reference (optional) El paso truss, El Paso Texas 7.640 s Aug 16 2017 MiTek Industries, Inc. Fri Sep 15 11:16:45 2017 Page 1 ID:XEqBKFYfxsKWEe0?8PIIEYydQuK-ciyt9N4Snv23JqR4F7gbFzoXHLtX0FKe3xSjBqydP6G -2-0-0 2-0-8 4-0-8 6-0-8 8-0-8 10-0-8 12-0-8 14-0-8 16-0-8 18-0-8 20-0-8 22-0-8 24-0-8 26-0-8 28-0-8 30-0-8 32-0-8 34-0-8 36-0-8 38-0-8 40-0-8 46-3-0 48-3-0 2-0-0 2-0-8 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 6-2-8 2-0-0

Scale = 1:85.6

5x5 3.00 12 10 11 12 13 14

9 15 8 16 3x6 7 17 3x6 6 18 19 5x8 5 20 3 4 21 7-6-0

2 22 1 23 3x5 24 3x5 25 3-3-8

26 27

0-9-0 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 4x6 3x4 5x5 5x5

2-0-8 4-0-8 6-0-8 8-0-8 10-0-8 12-0-8 14-0-8 16-0-8 18-0-8 20-0-8 22-0-8 24-0-8 26-0-8 28-0-8 30-0-8 32-0-8 34-0-8 36-0-8 38-0-8 40-0-8 46-3-0 2-0-8 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 2-0-0 6-2-8 Plate Offsets (X,Y)-- [2:0-5-7,0-0-0], [3:0-5-3,0-0-0], [26:0-2-0,0-2-11], [34:0-2-8,0-3-0], [41:0-2-8,0-3-0]

LOADING (psf) SPACING- 2-0-0 CSI. DEFL. in (loc) l/defl L/d PLATES GRIP TCLL 20.0 Plate Grip DOL 1.25 TC 0.25 Vert(LL) 0.00 27 n/r 180 MT20 185/144 TCDL 10.0 Lumber DOL 1.25 BC 0.17 Vert(CT) 0.02 27 n/r 80 BCLL 0.0 Rep Stress Incr YES WB 0.13 Horz(CT) 0.01 26 n/a n/a BCDL 10.0 Code IRC2015/TPI2014 (Matrix) Weight: 222 lb FT = 0%

LUMBER- BRACING- TOP CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E TOP CHORD Structural wood sheathing directly applied or 6-0-0 oc purlins, except BOT CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E *Except* end verticals. 26-34: 2x4 HF No.1&Btr BOT CHORD Rigid ceiling directly applied or 6-0-0 oc bracing. WEBS 2x4 SPF Stud OTHERS 2x4 SPF Stud

REACTIONS. All bearings 46-3-0. (lb) - Max Horz 48=-118(LC 9) Max Uplift All uplift 100 lb or less at joint(s) 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29 except 48=-132(LC 4), 26=-113(LC 5), 28=-116(LC 9) Max Grav All reactions 250 lb or less at joint(s) 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30 except 48=268(LC 1), 26=353(LC 20), 28=478(LC 1)

FORCES. (lb) - Max. Comp./Max. Ten. - All forces 250 (lb) or less except when shown. TOP CHORD 2-48=-251/141 WEBS 24-28=-341/155

NOTES- 1) Unbalanced roof live loads have been considered for this design. 2) Wind: ASCE 7-10; Vult=115mph (3-second gust) Vasd=91mph; TCDL=5.0psf; BCDL=4.8psf; h=15ft; Cat. II; Exp C; enclosed; MWFRS (envelope) gable end zone; cantilever left and right exposed ; end vertical left and right exposed; Lumber DOL=1.25 plate grip DOL=1.25 3) Truss designed for wind loads in the plane of the truss only. For studs exposed to wind (normal to the face), see Standard Industry Gable End Details as applicable, or consult qualified building designer as per ANSI/TPI 1. 4) All plates are 2x4 MT20 unless otherwise indicated. 5) Gable requires continuous bottom chord bearing. 6) Gable studs spaced at 2-0-0 oc. 7) This truss has been designed for a 10.0 psf bottom chord live load nonconcurrent with any other live loads. 8) Solid blocking is required on both sides of the truss at joint(s), 26. 9) Provide mechanical connection (by others) of truss to bearing plate capable of withstanding 100 lb uplift at joint(s) 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29 except (jt=lb) 48=132, 26=113, 28=116.

WARNING - Verify design parameters and READ NOTES ON THIS AND INCLUDED MITEK REFERENCE PAGE MII-7473 rev. 10/03/2015 BEFORE USE. Design valid for use only with MiTek® connectors. This design is based only upon parameters shown, and is for an individual building component, not a truss system. Before use, the building designer must verify the applicability of design parameters and properly incorporate this design into the overall building design. Bracing indicated is to prevent buckling of individual truss web and/or chord members only. Additional temporary and permanent bracing is always required for stability and to prevent collapse with possible personal injury and property damage. For general guidance regarding the fabrication, storage, delivery, erection and bracing of trusses and truss systems, see ANSI/TPI1 Quality Criteria, DSB-89 and BCSI Building Component 16023 Swingley Ridge Rd Safety Information available from Truss Plate Institute, 218 N. Lee Street, Suite 312, Alexandria, VA 22314. Chesterfield, MO 63017

AARB-1:151 Job Truss Truss Type Qty Ply 9328 McFall I31070965 SYNE-9328 AG5 MONOPITCH SUPPORTED 1 1 Job Reference (optional) El paso truss, El Paso Texas 7.640 s Aug 16 2017 MiTek Industries, Inc. Fri Sep 15 11:16:46 2017 Page 1 ID:XEqBKFYfxsKWEe0?8PIIEYydQuK-4uWGMj44YCAwx_0HpqBqoBLipkEElkEoIbCHjHydP6F 0-7-8 2-7-8 4-7-8 0-7-8 2-0-0 2-0-0

3.00 12 Scale = 1:22.1 4 5 6 3x6 2x4 7x6 3 2

1 3-1-4 2-3-0

2x4 10 9 8 7 2x4 2x4 2x4

0-7-8 2-7-8 4-7-8 0-7-8 2-0-0 2-0-0 Plate Offsets (X,Y)-- [2:0-2-5,0-5-0], [4:0-5-3,0-0-0]

LOADING (psf) SPACING- 2-0-0 CSI. DEFL. in (loc) l/defl L/d PLATES GRIP TCLL 20.0 Plate Grip DOL 1.25 TC 0.20 Vert(LL) 0.01 1 n/r 180 MT20 197/144 TCDL 10.0 Lumber DOL 1.25 BC 0.07 Vert(CT) -0.01 1 n/r 80 BCLL 0.0 Rep Stress Incr YES WB 0.02 Horz(CT) -0.00 7 n/a n/a BCDL 10.0 Code IRC2015/TPI2014 (Matrix) Weight: 25 lb FT = 0%

LUMBER- BRACING- TOP CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E TOP CHORD Structural wood sheathing directly applied or 4-7-8 oc purlins, except BOT CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E end verticals. WEBS 2x4 SPF Stud BOT CHORD Rigid ceiling directly applied or 10-0-0 oc bracing. OTHERS 2x4 SPF Stud

REACTIONS. All bearings 4-7-8. (lb) - Max Horz 10=106(LC 5) Max Uplift All uplift 100 lb or less at joint(s) 7, 8 except 10=-164(LC 4), 9=-177(LC 5) Max Grav All reactions 250 lb or less at joint(s) 7, 8, 9 except 10=314(LC 16)

FORCES. (lb) - Max. Comp./Max. Ten. - All forces 250 (lb) or less except when shown. TOP CHORD 2-10=-280/164

NOTES- 1) Wind: ASCE 7-10; Vult=115mph (3-second gust) Vasd=91mph; TCDL=5.0psf; BCDL=4.8psf; h=15ft; Cat. II; Exp C; enclosed; MWFRS (envelope) gable end zone; cantilever left and right exposed ; end vertical left and right exposed; Lumber DOL=1.25 plate grip DOL=1.25 2) Truss designed for wind loads in the plane of the truss only. For studs exposed to wind (normal to the face), see Standard Industry Gable End Details as applicable, or consult qualified building designer as per ANSI/TPI 1. 3) Gable requires continuous bottom chord bearing. 4) Truss to be fully sheathed from one face or securely braced against lateral movement (i.e. diagonal web). 5) Gable studs spaced at 2-0-0 oc. 6) This truss has been designed for a 10.0 psf bottom chord live load nonconcurrent with any other live loads. 7) Provide mechanical connection (by others) of truss to bearing plate capable of withstanding 100 lb uplift at joint(s) 7, 8 except (jt=lb) 10=164, 9=177.

WARNING - Verify design parameters and READ NOTES ON THIS AND INCLUDED MITEK REFERENCE PAGE MII-7473 rev. 10/03/2015 BEFORE USE. Design valid for use only with MiTek® connectors. This design is based only upon parameters shown, and is for an individual building component, not a truss system. Before use, the building designer must verify the applicability of design parameters and properly incorporate this design into the overall building design. Bracing indicated is to prevent buckling of individual truss web and/or chord members only. Additional temporary and permanent bracing is always required for stability and to prevent collapse with possible personal injury and property damage. For general guidance regarding the fabrication, storage, delivery, erection and bracing of trusses and truss systems, see ANSI/TPI1 Quality Criteria, DSB-89 and BCSI Building Component 16023 Swingley Ridge Rd Safety Information available from Truss Plate Institute, 218 N. Lee Street, Suite 312, Alexandria, VA 22314. Chesterfield, MO 63017

AARB-1:152 Job Truss Truss Type Qty Ply 9328 McFall I31070966 SYNE-9328 B1 MOD. QUEEN 7 1 Job Reference (optional) El paso truss, El Paso Texas 7.640 s Aug 16 2017 MiTek Industries, Inc. Fri Sep 15 11:16:47 2017 Page 1 ID:XEqBKFYfxsKWEe0?8PIIEYydQuK-Z44ea35jJWInZ8bTMXj3KOtmy8TnU50xWFxqFjydP6E -2-0-0 3-7-2 8-7-8 13-9-0 18-10-8 23-10-14 27-6-0 29-6-0 2-0-0 3-7-2 5-0-6 5-1-8 5-1-8 5-0-6 3-7-2 2-0-0

Scale = 1:52.0

4x4

3.00 12 6

3x5 3x5 5 7

2x4 2x4 4-2-4

3x6 8 3x6 4 3 9 2 10 1 11 0-9-0

0-9-0 14 12 13 4x7 4x7 3x5 3x5 5x8

5-11-0 13-9-0 21-7-0 27-6-0 5-11-0 7-10-0 7-10-0 5-11-0 Plate Offsets (X,Y)-- [2:0-3-4,0-1-3], [10:0-5-2,0-1-3], [13:0-4-0,0-3-0]

LOADING (psf) SPACING- 2-0-0 CSI. DEFL. in (loc) l/defl L/d PLATES GRIP TCLL 20.0 Plate Grip DOL 1.25 TC 0.69 Vert(LL) -0.18 12-13 >999 360 MT20 197/144 TCDL 10.0 Lumber DOL 1.25 BC 0.57 Vert(CT) -0.40 12-13 >819 240 BCLL 0.0 Rep Stress Incr YES WB 0.44 Horz(CT) 0.10 10 n/a n/a BCDL 10.0 Code IRC2015/TPI2014 (Matrix) Weight: 102 lb FT = 0%

LUMBER- BRACING- TOP CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E TOP CHORD Structural wood sheathing directly applied or 3-1-9 oc purlins. BOT CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E BOT CHORD Rigid ceiling directly applied or 10-0-0 oc bracing. WEBS 2x4 SPF Stud SLIDER Left 2x4 SPF Stud 1-9-2, Right 2x4 SPF Stud 1-9-2

REACTIONS. (lb/size) 2=1222/0-3-8, 10=1222/0-3-8 Max Horz 2=-62(LC 9) Max Uplift 2=-267(LC 4), 10=-267(LC 5)

FORCES. (lb) - Max. Comp./Max. Ten. - All forces 250 (lb) or less except when shown. TOP CHORD 2-3=-2526/409, 3-4=-2481/408, 4-5=-2599/375, 5-6=-2076/300, 6-7=-2076/300, 7-8=-2599/375, 8-9=-2481/408, 9-10=-2525/409 BOT CHORD 2-14=-405/2326, 13-14=-388/2487, 12-13=-336/2487, 10-12=-343/2326 WEBS 4-14=0/269, 5-13=-626/211, 6-13=-41/696, 7-13=-626/211, 8-12=0/269

NOTES- 1) Unbalanced roof live loads have been considered for this design. 2) Wind: ASCE 7-10; Vult=115mph (3-second gust) Vasd=91mph; TCDL=5.0psf; BCDL=4.8psf; h=15ft; Cat. II; Exp C; enclosed; MWFRS (envelope) gable end zone; cantilever left and right exposed ; end vertical left and right exposed; Lumber DOL=1.25 plate grip DOL=1.25 3) This truss has been designed for a 10.0 psf bottom chord live load nonconcurrent with any other live loads. 4) Provide mechanical connection (by others) of truss to bearing plate capable of withstanding 100 lb uplift at joint(s) except (jt=lb) 2=267, 10=267.

WARNING - Verify design parameters and READ NOTES ON THIS AND INCLUDED MITEK REFERENCE PAGE MII-7473 rev. 10/03/2015 BEFORE USE. Design valid for use only with MiTek® connectors. This design is based only upon parameters shown, and is for an individual building component, not a truss system. Before use, the building designer must verify the applicability of design parameters and properly incorporate this design into the overall building design. Bracing indicated is to prevent buckling of individual truss web and/or chord members only. Additional temporary and permanent bracing is always required for stability and to prevent collapse with possible personal injury and property damage. For general guidance regarding the fabrication, storage, delivery, erection and bracing of trusses and truss systems, see ANSI/TPI1 Quality Criteria, DSB-89 and BCSI Building Component 16023 Swingley Ridge Rd Safety Information available from Truss Plate Institute, 218 N. Lee Street, Suite 312, Alexandria, VA 22314. Chesterfield, MO 63017

AARB-1:153 Job Truss Truss Type Qty Ply 9328 McFall I31070967 SYNE-9328 BG GABLE 1 1 Job Reference (optional) El paso truss, El Paso Texas 7.640 s Aug 16 2017 MiTek Industries, Inc. Fri Sep 15 11:16:47 2017 Page 1 ID:XEqBKFYfxsKWEe0?8PIIEYydQuK-Z44ea35jJWInZ8bTMXj3KOts18UeU5BxWFxqFjydP6E -2-0-0 4-6-4 9-1-1 13-9-0 18-4-15 22-11-12 27-6-0 29-6-0 2-0-0 4-6-4 4-6-13 4-7-15 4-7-15 4-6-13 4-6-4 2-0-0

Scale = 1:53.8

4x4 3.00 12 2x4 6 2x4 3x5 3x5 5 7 2x4 3x4 2x4 3x4 2x4 2x4 3-10-10

4 8 3x4 3x4 3 9

2 10 2x4 11 1 0-9-0

0-9-0 2x4

14 12 2x4 13 2x4 6x6 6x6 4x4 4x4 5x8

6-10-9 13-9-0 20-7-7 27-6-0 6-10-9 6-10-7 6-10-7 6-10-9 Plate Offsets (X,Y)-- [10:Edge,0-6-15], [13:0-4-0,0-3-0]

LOADING (psf) SPACING- 2-0-0 CSI. DEFL. in (loc) l/defl L/d PLATES GRIP TCLL 20.0 Plate Grip DOL 1.25 TC 0.30 Vert(LL) -0.21 12-13 >999 360 MT20 185/144 TCDL 10.0 Lumber DOL 1.25 BC 0.51 Vert(CT) -0.45 13-14 >730 240 BCLL 0.0 Rep Stress Incr YES WB 0.43 Horz(CT) 0.12 10 n/a n/a BCDL 10.0 Code IRC2015/TPI2014 (Matrix) Weight: 111 lb FT = 0%

LUMBER- BRACING- TOP CHORD 2x4 SPF 1650F 1.5E TOP CHORD Structural wood sheathing directly applied or 3-9-11 oc purlins. BOT CHORD 2x4 HF No.1&Btr BOT CHORD Rigid ceiling directly applied or 8-5-15 oc bracing. WEBS 2x4 SPF Stud OTHERS 2x4 SPF Stud

REACTIONS. (lb/size) 2=1222/0-3-8, 10=1222/0-3-8 Max Horz 2=58(LC 12) Max Uplift 2=-268(LC 4), 10=-268(LC 5)

FORCES. (lb) - Max. Comp./Max. Ten. - All forces 250 (lb) or less except when shown. TOP CHORD 2-3=-3250/515, 3-4=-3199/525, 4-5=-3031/438, 5-6=-2228/320, 6-7=-2228/320, 7-8=-3031/438, 8-9=-3199/526, 9-10=-3250/516 BOT CHORD 2-14=-518/3085, 13-14=-416/2745, 12-13=-367/2745, 10-12=-469/3085 WEBS 5-14=0/363, 5-13=-724/212, 6-13=-58/782, 7-13=-724/213, 7-12=0/363

NOTES- 1) Unbalanced roof live loads have been considered for this design. 2) Wind: ASCE 7-10; Vult=115mph (3-second gust) Vasd=91mph; TCDL=5.0psf; BCDL=4.8psf; h=15ft; Cat. II; Exp C; enclosed; MWFRS (envelope) gable end zone; cantilever left and right exposed ; end vertical left and right exposed; Lumber DOL=1.25 plate grip DOL=1.25 3) Truss designed for wind loads in the plane of the truss only. For studs exposed to wind (normal to the face), see Standard Industry Gable End Details as applicable, or consult qualified building designer as per ANSI/TPI 1. 4) Gable studs spaced at 2-0-0 oc. 5) This truss has been designed for a 10.0 psf bottom chord live load nonconcurrent with any other live loads. 6) Solid blocking is required on both sides of the truss at joint(s), 10. 7) Provide mechanical connection (by others) of truss to bearing plate capable of withstanding 100 lb uplift at joint(s) except (jt=lb) 2=268, 10=268.

WARNING - Verify design parameters and READ NOTES ON THIS AND INCLUDED MITEK REFERENCE PAGE MII-7473 rev. 10/03/2015 BEFORE USE. Design valid for use only with MiTek® connectors. This design is based only upon parameters shown, and is for an individual building component, not a truss system. Before use, the building designer must verify the applicability of design parameters and properly incorporate this design into the overall building design. Bracing indicated is to prevent buckling of individual truss web and/or chord members only. Additional temporary and permanent bracing is always required for stability and to prevent collapse with possible personal injury and property damage. For general guidance regarding the fabrication, storage, delivery, erection and bracing of trusses and truss systems, see ANSI/TPI1 Quality Criteria, DSB-89 and BCSI Building Component 16023 Swingley Ridge Rd Safety Information available from Truss Plate Institute, 218 N. Lee Street, Suite 312, Alexandria, VA 22314. Chesterfield, MO 63017

AARB-1:154 Symbols Numbering System General Safety Notes PLATE LOCATION AND ORIENTATION Center plate on joint unless x, y 6-4-8 dimensions shown in ft-in-sixteenths Failure to Follow Could Cause Property 1 3/4" (Drawings not to scale) Damage or Personal Injury offsets are indicated. Dimensions are in ft-in-sixteenths. Apply plates to both sides of truss 1. Additional stability bracing for truss system, e.g. and fully embed teeth. 1 2 3 diagonal or X-bracing, is always required. See BCSI. TOP CHORDS C1-2 C2-3 2. Truss bracing must be designed by an engineer. For 0 -1/16" 4 wide truss spacing, individual lateral braces themselves WEBS C3 -4 may require bracing, or alternative Tor I TOP CHORD

bracing should be considered.

TOP CHORD W2-7

W3-6 C1-8

W

7 3- 1- 7

W 3. Never exceed the design loading shown and never

C4-5 6 stack materials on inadequately braced trusses.

4- W 4. Provide copies of this truss design to the building C7-8 C6-7 C5-6 For 4 x 2 orientation, locate designer, erection supervisor, property owner and plates 0- 1/16" from outside BOTTOM CHORDS all other interested parties. edge of truss. 8 7 6 5 5. Cut members to bear tightly against each other. 6. Place plates on each face of truss at each This symbol indicates the JOINTS ARE GENERALLY NUMBERED/LETTERED CLOCKWISE joint and embed fully. Knots and wane at joint required direction of slots in AROUND THE TRUSS STARTING AT THE JOINT FARTHEST TO locations are regulated by ANSI/TPI 1. connector plates. THE LEFT. 7. Design assumes trusses will be suitably protected from CHORDS AND WEBS ARE IDENTIFIED BY END JOINT the environment in accord with ANSI/TPI 1. * Plate location details available in MiTek 20/20 NUMBERS/LETTERS. software or upon request. 8. Unless otherwise noted, moisture content of lumber

AARB-1:155 shall not exceed 19% at time of fabrication. PRODUCT CODE APPROVALS 9. Unless expressly noted, this design is not applicable for PLATE SIZE use with fire retardant, preservative treated, or green lumber. ICC-ES Reports: The first dimension is the plate 10. Camber is a non-structural consideration and is the 4x4 width measured perpendicular to slots. Second dimension is ESR-1311, ESR-1352, ESR1988 ER-3907, ESR-2362, ESR-1397, ESR-3282 responsibility of truss fabricator. General practice is to camber for dead load deflection. the length parallel to slots. 11. Plate type, size, orientation and location dimensions indicated are minimum plating requirements. LATERAL BRACING LOCATION 12. Lumber used shall be of the species and size, and in all respects, equal to or better than that Indicated by symbol shown and/or Trusses are designed for wind loads in the plane of the specified. by text in the bracing section of the truss unless otherwise shown. 13. Top chords must be sheathed or purlins provided at output. Use T or I bracing spacing indicated on design. if indicated. Lumber design values are in accordance with ANSI/TPI 1 14. Bottom chords require lateral bracing at 10 ft. spacing, section 6.3 These truss designs rely on lumber values or less, if no ceiling is installed, unless otherwise noted. BEARING established by others. 15. Connections not shown are the responsibility of others. Indicates location where bearings 16. Do not cut or alter truss member or plate without prior (supports) occur. Icons vary but © 2012 MiTek® All Rights Reserved approval of an engineer. reaction section indicates joint number where bearings occur. 17. Install and load vertically unless indicated otherwise. Min size shown is for crushing only. 18. Use of green or treated lumber may pose unacceptable environmental, health or performance risks. Consult with project engineer before use. Industry Standards: ANSI/TPI1: National Design Specification for Metal 19. Review all portions of this design (front, back, words and pictures) before use. Reviewing pictures alone Plate Connected Wood Truss Construction. is not sufficient. DSB-89: Design Standard for Bracing. BCSI: Building Component Safety Information, 20. Design assumes manufacture in accordance with Guide to Good Practice for Handling, ANSI/TPI 1 Quality Criteria. Installing & Bracing of Metal Plate Connected Wood Trusses. MiTek Engineering Reference Sheet: MII-7473 rev. 10/03/2015 mnevarez@lawofficesmrn.com

From: no-reply@efilingmail.tylertech.cloud Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 10:05 AM To: MRN@MRN4Law.com Subject: Filing Accepted for Case: 2021DCV2346; Eldon Rodriguez and Maria RodriguezVSHeather Harmston, Jaime Gardea, Synergy Construct LLC, GC RENTALS AND MANAGEMENT LLC, Megan Tara Harris; Envelope Number: 81539749

Filing Accepted Envelope Number: 81539749 Case Number: 2021DCV2346 Case Style: Eldon Rodriguez and Maria RodriguezVSHeather Harmston, Jaime Gardea, Synergy Construct LLC, GC RENTALS AND MANAGEMENT LLC, Megan Tara Harris

The filing below was reviewed and has been accepted by the clerk's office. You may access the file stamped copy of the document filed by clicking on the below link.If the link does not work, please copy the link and paste into your browser. You can also obtain this document by following the steps on this article.

Filing Details Court El Paso County - District Clerk Case Number 2021DCV2346 Eldon Rodriguez and Maria RodriguezVSHeather Harmston, Jaime Case Style Gardea, Synergy Construct LLC, GC RENTALS AND MANAGEMENT LLC, Megan Tara Harris Date/Time Submitted 11/10/2023 8:33 PM MST Date/Time Accepted 11/13/2023 10:04 AM MST Accepted Comments THANK YOU FOR E-FILING / VCABLES Filing Type EFileAndServe Filing Description Amended witness list Activity Requested Amended Filing Filed By Michael Nevarez Filing Attorney Michael Nevarez

Document Details Lead Document Plaintiffs' 3rd Amended List of Experts.pdf Lead Document Page 7 Count 1 AARB-1:156 File Stamped Copy Download Document This link is active for 30 days.

Please Note: If you have not already done so, be sure to add yourself as a service contact on this case in order to receive eService.

For technical assistance, contact your service provider

Online: https://prodocefile.com Phone: (800) 759-5418 Available 24x7 and online with chat

Please do not reply to this email. It was automatically generated.

2 AARB-1:157 mnevarez@lawofficesmrn.com

From: TERRY SILVA Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 10:46 AM To: mnevarez@lawofficesmrn.com; Blake Downey; Mario Gonzalez Cc: VIRGINIA MUNOZ; HALA ABDEL-JABER; James A. Martinez Subject: Eldon Rodriguez, et al v. GC Rentals and Management, LLC, et al (Cause No. 2021DCV2346) Attachments: Objections to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Notice of Deposition of Corporate Representative of GC Rentals and Management.pdf

Good morning counsel, attached is our Objections to Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Notice of Deposition of Corporate Representative of GC Rentals and Management. I appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you and have a great day.

Terry Silva Legal Secretary to Hala Abdel-Jaber, Michael Garcia and Elena Esparza MOUNCE, GREEN, MYERS, SAFI, PAXSON & GALATZAN, PC 100 N. Stanton, Suite 1000 El Paso, TX 79901

P.O. Box 1977 El Paso, TX 79999-1977 (915)532-2000 ext. 201 (915)541-1526 fax tsilva@mgmsg.com

1 AARB-1:158 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS 171st JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ELDON RODRIGUEZ and MARIA § RODRIGUEZ, § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § Case No. 2021DCV2346 § HEATHER HARMSTON, JAIME § GARDEA, SYNERGY CONSTRUCT § LLC, GC RENTALS AND § MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a REALTY § ONE GROUP MENDEZ BURK, and § MEGAN TARA HARRIS, § § Defendants. §

OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF GC RENTALS AND MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a REALTY ONE GROUP MENDEZ BURK

TO: ELDON RODRIGUEZ and MARIA RODRIGUEZ, by and through their attorney of record, Michael Nevarez, 7362 Remcon Circle, El Paso, Texas 79912.

COMES NOW GC RENTALS AND MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a REALTY ONE

GROUP MENDEZ BURK, and serves its Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Third Amended

Notice of Deposition of corporate representative of GC Rentals and Management, LLC d/b/a

Realty One Group Mendez Burk, served on October 16, 2023.

1 1939-407/HABD/1754930

AARB-1:159 Respectfully submitted,

MOUNCE, GREEN, MYERS, SAFI, PAXSON & GALATZAN A Professional Corporation P.O. Box 1977 El Paso, Texas 79999-1977 (915) 532-2000 (915) 541-1597 (fax)

By: _________________________________ James A. Martinez State Bar No. 00791192 martinezja@jmeplaw.com Hala A. Abdel-Jaber State Bar No. 24133142 abdel-jaber@mgmsg.com

Attorneys for Defendants GC Rentals and Megan Tara Harris

In compliance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21a (e), I, Hala A. Abdel-Jaber hereby certify that on the 13th day of November, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document filed electronically with the clerk of the court in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21a (f)(1) is served on the following parties or attorney(s): Michael Nevarez, 7362 Remcon Circle, El Paso, Texas 79912, mnevarez@lawofficesmrn.com, M. Blake Downey, One San Jacinto Plaza, 201 N. Main Drive, Suite 1100, El Paso, Texas 79901, bdow@scotthulse.com, and Mario A. Gonzalez, 1522 Montana Avenue #100, El Paso, Texas 79902, mario@gonzalezlawfirm.com.

____________________________________ HALA A. ABDEL-JABER

2 1939-407/HABD/1754930

AARB-1:160 OBJECTIONS TO THE TOPICS OF CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE

A. Identity of Clients in this Matter.

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is overly broad, unduly burdensome and vague as to Plaintiffs use of the phrase “Identity of Clients.” Use of such phrase is vague and ambiguous as such phrase fails to identify with reasonable particularity the information requested. This Defendant should not be required to guess the level of specificity that Plaintiffs so requests. Defendant further objects to the extent this calls for legal conclusion this Defendant is not qualified to give.

B. Authority to Represent.

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is vague and ambiguous as written, overly broad, unduly burdensome and completely unlimited in time and scope nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

C. Contracts/Agreements for Representation.

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is vague and ambiguous as written, overly broad and unduly burdensome and contains no reasonable limitations.

D. History of Representation.

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome as it is completely unlimited in time and contains no reasonable limitations.

E. Fiduciary Duty to Clients.

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is overly broad, vague and ambiguous as to the phrase “Clients” and calls for legal conclusion this Defendant is not qualified to give.

F. Entity Structure and Hierarchy.

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is overly broad and seeks information that is not limited to any claim or defense nor reasonably calculated to lead to any discovery of admissible evidence.

3 1939-407/HABD/1754930

AARB-1:161 G. Ethics and Principles of the Company and Duties Owed to Clients.

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to this to the extent that it requires Defendant to describe the conditions and/or actions of another Defendant and calls for legal conclusion.

H. Earnings, Commissions and Expenses.

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome as it is completely unlimited in time and contains no reasonable limitations.

I. Insurance, Indemnity and Surety Coverage.

ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE: To the extent that this seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges, such information will be withheld.

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is vague and ambiguous and exceeds the scope of insurance discovery pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.3(f).

J. Employment-Contract Personnel Matters.

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is vague and ambiguous, fails to identify parties and completed unlimited in time and scope.

K. Training and Education.

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is vague and ambiguous as written, overly broad and unduly burdensome and contains no reasonable limitations.

L. Complaints.

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is vague and ambiguous, fails to identify specific witnesses, overly broad and unduly burdensome as it is completely unlimited in time and contains no reasonable limitations.

M. Disciplinary Matters.

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is vague and ambiguous, fails to identify specific witnesses, overly broad and unduly burdensome as it is completely unlimited in time and contains no reasonable limitations.

4 1939-407/HABD/1754930

AARB-1:162 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS 171st JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ELDON RODRIGUEZ and MARIA § RODRIGUEZ, § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § Case No. 2021DCV2346 § HEATHER HARMSTON, JAIME § GARDEA, SYNERGY CONSTRUCT § LLC, GC RENTALS AND § MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a REALTY § ONE GROUP MENDEZ BURK, and § MEGAN TARA HARRIS, § § Defendants. §

OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF GC RENTALS AND MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a REALTY ONE GROUP MENDEZ BURK

TO: ELDON RODRIGUEZ and MARIA RODRIGUEZ, by and through their attorney of record, Michael Nevarez, 7362 Remcon Circle, El Paso, Texas 79912.

GROUP MENDEZ BURK, and serves its Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Third Amended

Notice of Deposition of corporate representative of GC Rentals and Management, LLC d/b/a

AARB-1:163 Respectfully submitted,

MOUNCE, GREEN, MYERS, SAFI, PAXSON & GALATZAN A Professional Corporation P.O. Box 1977 El Paso, Texas 79999-1977 (915) 532-2000 (915) 541-1597 (fax)

By: _________________________________ James A. Martinez State Bar No. 00791192 martinezja@jmeplaw.com Hala A. Abdel-Jaber State Bar No. 24133142 abdel-jaber@mgmsg.com

In compliance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21a (e), I, Hala A. Abdel-Jaber hereby certify that on the 13th day of November, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document filed electronically with the clerk of the court in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21a (f)(1) is served on the following parties or attorney(s): Michael Nevarez, 7362 Remcon Circle, El Paso, Texas 79912, mnevarez@lawofficesmrn.com, M. Blake Downey, One San Jacinto Plaza, 201 N. Main Drive, Suite 1100, El Paso, Texas 79901, bdow@scotthulse.com, and Mario A. Gonzalez, 1522 Montana Avenue #100, El Paso, Texas 79902, mario@gonzalezlawfirm.com.

AARB-1:164 OBJECTIONS TO THE TOPICS OF CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is overly broad, unduly burdensome and vague as to Plaintiffs use of the phrase “Identity of Clients.” Use of such phrase is vague and ambiguous as such phrase fails to identify with reasonable particularity the information requested. This Defendant should not be required to guess the level of specificity that Plaintiffs so requests. Defendant further objects to the extent this calls for legal conclusion this Defendant is not qualified to give.

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is vague and ambiguous as written, overly broad, unduly burdensome and completely unlimited in time and scope nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is vague and ambiguous as written, overly broad and unduly burdensome and contains no reasonable limitations.

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome as it is completely unlimited in time and contains no reasonable limitations.

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is overly broad, vague and ambiguous as to the phrase “Clients” and calls for legal conclusion this Defendant is not qualified to give.

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is overly broad and seeks information that is not limited to any claim or defense nor reasonably calculated to lead to any discovery of admissible evidence.

AARB-1:165 G. Ethics and Principles of the Company and Duties Owed to Clients.

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendant objects to this to the extent that it requires Defendant to describe the conditions and/or actions of another Defendant and calls for legal conclusion.

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome as it is completely unlimited in time and contains no reasonable limitations.

ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE: To the extent that this seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges, such information will be withheld.

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is vague and ambiguous and exceeds the scope of insurance discovery pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.3(f).

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is vague and ambiguous, fails to identify parties and completed unlimited in time and scope.

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is vague and ambiguous as written, overly broad and unduly burdensome and contains no reasonable limitations.

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is vague and ambiguous, fails to identify specific witnesses, overly broad and unduly burdensome as it is completely unlimited in time and contains no reasonable limitations.

OBJECTION: This Defendant objects to the extent this is vague and ambiguous, fails to identify specific witnesses, overly broad and unduly burdensome as it is completely unlimited in time and contains no reasonable limitations.

AARB-1:166 Date Calculator https://www.calculator.net/date-calculator.html?today2=12%2F04%2F2023&c2op=%2B&c2y...

FINANCIAL FITNESS & HEALTH MATH OTHER

home / other / date calculator

Date Calculator Days Between Two Dates Find the number of years, months, weeks, and days between dates. Click "Settings" to define holidays.

Start Date

End Date

include end day (add 1 day)

Calculate Settings Search

Add to or Subtract from a Date Other Calculators Result Age Date Time Hours Jan 3, 2024, Wednesday GPA Grade is the date 30 days after Dec 4, 2023 Height Concrete IP Subnet Bra Size December 2023 January 2024 Password Generator Dice Roller S M T W T F S S M T W T F S Conversion More Other Calculators 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 Financial | Fitness and Health | Math | Other 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 31

1 of 5 12/14/2023, 11:54 PM AARB-1:167 Date Calculator https://www.calculator.net/date-calculator.html?today2=12%2F04%2F2023&c2op=%2B&c2y...

years months weeks days

calculate in business days

Calculate

Related Time Calculator | Age Calculator

History of the Gregorian Calendar

The Gregorian calendar is the most prevalently used calendar today. Within this calendar, a standard year consists of 365 days with a leap day being introduced to the month of February during a leap year. The months of April, June, September, and November have 30 days, while the rest have 31 days except for February, which has 28 days in a standard year, and 29 in a leap year. The Gregorian calendar is a reformed version of the Julian calendar, which was itself a modification of the ancient Roman calendar. The ancient Roman calendar was believed to be an observational lunar calendar, based on the cycles of the moon's phases. The Romans were then believed to have adopted a 10-month calendar with 304 days, leaving the remaining 50 or so days as an unorganized winter. This calendar allowed the summer and winter months to become completely misplaced, leading to the adoption of more accurate calendars.

2 of 5 12/14/2023, 11:54 PM AARB-1:168 Date Calculator https://www.calculator.net/date-calculator.html?today2=12%2F04%2F2023&c2op=%2B&c2y...

The Republican calendar later used by Rome followed Greek calendars in its assumptions of 29.5 days in a lunar cycle and 12.5 synodic months in a solar year, which align every fourth year upon the addition of the intercalary months of January and February. From this point, many attempts were made to align the Republican calendar with the solar year including the addition of an extra month to certain years to supplant the lack of days in a particular year. In 46 BC, the calendar was further reformed by Julius Caesar, introducing an algorithm that removed the dependence of calendars from the observation of the new moon. In order to accomplish this, Caesar inserted an additional 10 days into the Republican calendar, making the total number of days in a year 365. He also added the intercalation of a leap day every fourth year, all in an attempt to further synchronize the Roman calendar with the solar year. Despite all efforts, the Julian calendar still required further reform, since the calendar drifted with respect to the equinoxes and solstices by approximately 11 minutes per year. By 1582, this resulted in a difference of 10 days from what was expected. Pope Gregory XIII addressed this by essentially skipping 10 days in the date, making the day after October 4, 1582, October 15. An adjustment was also made to the algorithm of the Julian calendar that changed which century years would be considered leap years. Under the Gregorian calendar, century years not divisible by 400 would not be leap years. These changes reduced the error from 1 day in 128 years, to 1 day in 3,030 years with respect to the current value of the mean solar year. The adoption of the Gregorian calendar occurred slowly over a period of centuries, and despite many proposals to further reform the calendar, the Gregorian Calendar still prevails as the most commonly used dating system worldwide.

Holidays

A holiday is a day that, either by custom or by law, is set aside such that regular activities like going to work or school are suspended, or at least reduced. The term "holiday" can be interpreted differently, depending on the region. In the U.S., paid leave is typically referred to as "vacation," while national, religious, or cultural days off are referred to exclusively as "holiday." In some regions, however, such as the United Kingdom or former British colonies, the term holiday can also refer to paid leave. Generally, holidays are meant to commemorate some event, person, or group of cultural or religious significance. Although certain holidays, such as Christmas and New Year's Day, are widely celebrated worldwide, most countries have their own set of holidays that are specific to the country, and even the same holidays may be observed differently within countries: some may receive a full suspension of typical daily activities, while others may only get partial days off. Certain countries have holidays that essentially shut down almost

3 of 5 12/14/2023, 11:54 PM AARB-1:169 Date Calculator https://www.calculator.net/date-calculator.html?today2=12%2F04%2F2023&c2op=%2B&c2y...

all businesses. As an example, in Brazil, Carnaval do Brasil results in almost a full week in which only industrial production, retail establishments, or carnival-related businesses, function. This calculator is mainly geared towards U.S. holidays, but holidays specific to a given country can be entered manually. Certain holidays can also be excluded. For a further level of specificity, federal holidays in the U.S. refer to holidays that have been recognized by the U.S. government; on these days, non-essential federal government offices are closed, and all federal employees receive paid leave. This is not necessarily true in the private sector, however, and which federal holidays a private sector employee receives is largely dependent on the discretion of the company. In some cases, an employee who is required to work on a federal holiday may receive compensation in the form of holiday pay in addition to their regular wages. Certain holidays such as New Year's Day are referred to as "fixed holidays," since they fall on the same date every year. Others, such as the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., don't have a fixed date, because they occur on a "floating Monday"; in this particular case, the holiday occurs on the third Monday of January. Another widely observed holiday in the U.S., Thanksgiving, occurs on a "floating Thursday," the fourth Thursday In November, hence the dates of these holidays vary by year. Below are two tables showing the dates of federal holidays in the U.S. for 2023 and 2024.

2023 U.S. Federal Holidays New Year's Day Jan. 1, 2023 Martin Luther King Jr. Day Jan. 16, 2023 President's Day Feb. 20, 2023 Memorial Day May. 29, 2023 Juneteenth Day Jun. 19, 2023 Independence Day Jul. 4, 2023 Labor Day Sep. 4, 2023 Columbus Day Oct. 9, 2023 Veteran's Day Nov. 11, 2023 Thanksgiving Nov. 23, 2023 Christmas Dec. 25, 2023

2024 U.S. Federal Holidays

4 of 5 12/14/2023, 11:54 PM AARB-1:170 Date Calculator https://www.calculator.net/date-calculator.html?today2=12%2F04%2F2023&c2op=%2B&c2y...

New Year's Day Jan. 1, 2024 Martin Luther King Jr. Day Jan. 15, 2024 President's Day Feb. 19, 2024 Memorial Day May. 27, 2024 Juneteenth Day Jun. 19, 2024 Independence Day Jul. 4, 2024 Labor Day Sep. 2, 2024 Columbus Day Oct. 14, 2024 Veteran's Day Nov. 11, 2024 Thanksgiving Nov. 28, 2024 Christmas Dec. 25, 2024

about us | sitemap | terms of use | privacy policy © 2008 - 2023 calculator.net

5 of 5 12/14/2023, 11:54 PM AARB-1:171 El Paso County - 171st District Court Filed 1/3/2024 1:23 PM Norma Favela Barceleau District Clerk El Paso County 2021DCV2346 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS 171ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ELDON RODRIGUEZ, and § MARIA RODRIGUEZ § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § CAUSE NUMBER: 2021-DCV-2346 § HEATHER HARMSTON, § JAIME GARDEA, § SYNERGY CONSTRUCT LLC, § GC RENTALS AND MANAGEMENT LLC § d/b/a REALTY ONE GROUP MENDEZ BURK, § GABRIEL MENDEZ, and § MIGUEL CHACON, § § Defendants. §

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER, MOTION TO MODIFY, MOTION TO CORRECT, MOTION TO REFORM, MOTION TO VACATE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

TO JUDGE BONNIE RANGEL OF THIS COURT:

COME NOW Plaintiffs ELDON RODRIGUEZ and MARIA RODRIGUEZ (hereinafter

individually and/or jointly referred to as “RODRIGUEZ” and/or “Plaintiffs”), by and through the

undersigned counsel, and hereby file this “Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify,

Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For

New Trial” (“Motion”), in accordance with Rules 320, 324, and 329b of the Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure (“TRCP”), and in support thereof, would respectfully show unto the Court as follows:

I. PRELIMINARY STATMENT.

1. Plaintiffs ELDON RODRIGUEZ and MARIA RODRIGUEZ timely file this

Motion, within thirty (30) days after the “Order on Defendants’ Joint Motion For Sanctions,

AARB-1:172 Motion To Show Cause and Motion For Emergency Hearing” (“Order”) was signed and filed by

this Court in the above-styled and -numbered cause of action on December 4, 2023, in full

accordance with Rules 320, 324, and 329b of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. This Motion prays the Court to reconsider, modify, correct, reform, vacate, and set

aside the Order, and to set a new trial, on the basis that the Order herein, dismissing and denying

all of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants, in their entirety and with prejudice, and assessing all

costs against Plaintiffs, is (a) clearly erroneous in law and fact, (b) constitutes legal error, (c) is

arbitrary and capricious, tantamount to an abuse of discretion, (d) contrary to the principles of

equity and good conscience and equal protection, and (e) violates the substantive and procedural

due process rights afforded Plaintiffs under the Constitution of the State of Texas, and that of the

United States of America. 1

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.

3. On July 7, 2021, RODRIGUEZ filed their “Original Petition And Request For

Disclosure” (“Petition”). Attached to the Petition as Exhibit C was Plaintiffs’ May 7, 2020

Demand Letter, therein seeking inter alia damages in the following amounts:

a. $11,391.00, as reimbursement for the cost of RODRIGUEZ’ move to Texas;

b. $12,726.00, as reimbursement for the cost of the structural repairs and improvements incurred by RODRIGUEZ, and

c. $5,151.00, as reimbursement for the cost RODRIGUEZ moving back to California.

1 Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference thereto, for all intents and purposes, as if fully set forth herein, “Plaintiffs’ Response To Defendants, GC Rentals and Management LLC d/b/a Realty One Group Mendez Burk, Heather Harmston, Jaime Gardea, Synergy Construct LLC’s, Joint Motion For Sanctions Against Plaintiffs, Motion To Show Cause and Motion For Emergency Hearing” (“Response”), and all the exhibits attached thereto, which were filed in this Court on November 28, 2023.

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 2 of 28

AARB-1:173 4. On June 23, 2022, RODRIGUEZ served “Plaintiffs’ Rule 194.2 Initial

Disclosures” on Defendant GARDEA. (See Response, Exhibit A).

5. On same date, June 23, 2022, RODRIGUEZ filed “Plaintiffs’ Certificate of

Written Discovery” certifying the “Plaintiffs’ Rule 194.2 Initial Disclosures” were served on

HARMSTON, GARDEA, and SYNERGY. (See Response, Exhibits B – D).

6. On July 1, 2022, GC RENTALS filed its “Defendant GC Rentals and

Management LLC d/b/a Realty One Group Mendez Burk’s Original Answer.” (See Response,

Exhibit E).

7. On April 5, 2023, Plaintiffs were served with “Defendant GC Rentals And

Management LLC’s First Set Of Interrogatories And Requests For Production To Plaintiffs”

(“Discovery Requests”). Significantly, the only interrogatories or requests for production in GC

RENTALS’ Discovery Requests pertinent herein are requests for production Nos. 33 and 36,

which request the following:

33. Please produce records that reflect all repairs you performed on the Property from January 1, 2018 to the present.

36. If you had to have any of the work any Defendant performed repaired or corrected, please produce records that reflect the nature and cost of the repair or corrective work.

(See Response, Exhibit F). 2

8. On May 5, 2023, RODRIGUEZ served “Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria

Rodriguez’s Responses and Answers To Defendant GC Rentals and Management LLC’s First Set

of Interrogatories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs” on Defendant GC RENTALS.

2 It is also significant for purposes of subject Motion that GC RENTALS’ Discovery Requests nowhere request copies of documents reflecting the moving expenses claimed by RODRIGUEZ.

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 3 of 28

AARB-1:174 (“First Discovery Responses”). (See Response, Exhibit G).

9. On same date, May 5, 2023, RODRIGUEZ filed “Plaintiffs’ Certificate of Written

Discovery” certifying the “Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez’s Responses and

Answers To Defendant GC Rentals and Management LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories and

Requests For Production To Plaintiffs” was served on GC RENTALS. (See Response, Exhibit

H).

10. On May 18, 2023, Defendant GC RENTALS filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’

Responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production (“Motion to

Compel”). (See Response, Exhibit I).

11. On June 19, 2023, the oral deposition of Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez (“ELDON”)

commenced, and ELDON was examined regarding Plaintiffs’ repair and moving expenses. (See

Exhibit 01 attached hereto, Transcript page 29, lines 13-25; Transcript page 30, lines 1-6;

Transcript page 32, lines 11-19; and Transcript page 125, lines 1-25).

12. On June 20, 2023, the oral deposition of ELDON continued, including the

continuing examination of ELDON regarding Plaintiffs’ repair and moving expenses. (See

Exhibit 02 attached hereto, Transcript page 7, lines 13-22; Transcript page 10, lines 22-25;

Transcript page 11, lines 1-25; Transcript page 12, lines 1-10; Transcript page 15, lines 13-25;

Transcript page 16, lines 1-25; Transcript page 17, lines 1-25; Transcript page 18, lines 1-25;

Transcript page 19, lines 1-25; Transcript page 21, lines 20-25; Transcript page 22, lines 1-25;

Transcript page 24, lines 20-25; and Transcript page 25, lines 1-12).

13. On or about July 21, 2023, this Court heard Defendant GC RENTALS’ Motion to

Compel, wherein the undersigned counsel for RODRIGUEZ voluntarily agreed to amend their

responses and produce all non-privileged documents responsive to Defendant GC RENTALS’

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 4 of 28

AARB-1:175 Requests for Production on or before August 4, 2023.

14. On July 26, 2023, this Court signed an “Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion For

Sanctions.” (See Exhibit 03 attached hereto).

15. On same date, July 26, 2023, this Court signed an “Order On Defendant’s Motion

To Compel Discovery Against Plaintiffs” (“Order On GC RENTALS’ Motion To Compel”)

ruling in accordance with the above-mentioned voluntary agreement of undersigned counsel for

RODRIGUEZ. (See Exhibit 04 attached hereto).

16. On August 4, 2023, RODRIGUEZ timely complied with subject Order, by

providing GC RENTALS with “Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez’s First

Supplementary Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management LLC’s First

Set Interrogatories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs” (“Second Discovery Responses”),

on Defendant GC RENTAL. Significantly, in response to GC RENTALS’ Discovery Requests,

RODRIGUEZ responded to Requests For Production (“RFP”) Nos. 33 and 36 pertinent herein,

as follows:

33. Please produce records that reflect all repairs you performed on the Property from January 1, 2018 to the present.

Response: Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non- privileged documents in Plaintiffs’ possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

As a Supplementary Response, and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiffs respond as follows: No

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 5 of 28

AARB-1:176 change to the foregoing response, except to add:

1. In accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4), Plaintiffs will produce for inspection and copying all documents responsive to this request on August 4, 2023, at 9 AM MST, at 7362 Remcon Circle, El Paso, Texas 79912. 2. None available at this time. 3. See deposition of Eldon Rodriguez.

(emphasis added). (See Response, Exhibit M).

36. If you had to have any of the work any Defendant performed repaired or corrected, please produce records that reflect the nature and cost of the repair or corrective work.

Response: Because this request requires the production of voluminous documents, they are not attached to this response. Instead, Plaintiffs will make available to Defendant all non- privileged documents in Plaintiffs’ possession, custody and control, and provide the Defendant the reasonable opportunity to examine and copy the documents, at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4).

As a Supplementary Response, and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiffs respond as follows: No change to the foregoing response, except to add:

4. In accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.5, and 196.2(b)(4), Plaintiffs will produce for inspection and copying all documents responsive to this request on August 4, 2023, at 9 AM MST, at 7362 Remcon Circle, El Paso, Texas 79912. 5. None available at this time. 6. See deposition of Eldon Rodriguez.

(emphasis added) (See Response, Exhibit M).

17. On August 4, 2023, RODRIGUEZ filed “Plaintiffs’ Certificate of Written Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 6 of 28

AARB-1:177 Discovery” certifying that “Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez’s First

Supplementary Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management LLC’s First

Set Interrogatories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs” was served on GC RENTALS.

(See Response, Exhibit N).

18. On same date, August 4, 2023, RODRIGUEZ served “Plaintiffs’ First

Supplementary TRCP Rule 194 Required Disclosures” on HARMSTON, GARDEA, SYNERGY

and GC RENTALS and filed “Plaintiffs’ Certificate of Written Discovery.” (See Response,

Exhibits O and P).

19. On August 4, 2023, GC RENTALS’ counsel appeared at the undersigned’s office

in order to inspect and collect documents responsive to GC RENTALS’ request for production.

The documents responsive to said production were made available to Counsel for GC RENTALS

for inspection and copying, in accordance with Plaintiffs’ Second Discovery Responses. GC

RENTALS’ counsel was informed the documents could not be taken from undersigned’s office

for copying, but that copies could be made by the building receptionist at a cost. GC RENTALS’

counsel did not agree with paying for copies, so undersigned’s office offered to provide the

documents via a DropBox link, to which GC RENTALS’ Counsel agreed. Counsel for

GARDEA and SYNERGY also appeared and requested copies of the complete file made

available to Counsel for GC RENTALS for inspection and copying, and also agreed to receive

documents via the DropBox link. 3

20. On August 4, 2023, the undersigned counsel produced to Counsel for GC

3 The representation of Counsel for GC RENTALS, at Motion Page 2, claiming that “Plaintiffs’ counsel required Defendants counsel to appear at his office in order to inspect and collect documents responsive to production”, is thus false, as the undersigned had offered to provide Defendants’ counsel electronic copies. (emphasis added).

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 7 of 28

AARB-1:178 RENTALS, HARMSTON, GARDEA and SYNERGY via DropBox all documents responsive to

GC RENTALS’ requests for production. (See Exhibit 05 attached hereto).

21. On August 10, 2023, at 10:30 AM, undersigned counsel received a letter from Ms.

Hala A. Abdel-Jaber (“ABDEL-JABER”), counsel for GC RENTALS, regarding the purported

failure of Plaintiffs to fully respond to “Plaintiff Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez’s First

Supplementary Responses and Answers to Defendant GC Rentals and Management LLC’s First

Set Interrogatories and Requests For Production To Plaintiffs.” (See Response, Exhibit Q).

22. Significantly, said ABDEL-JABER letter did not at all raise or address the

purported failure of Plaintiffs to (a) fully respond to RFP Nos. 33 and 36 pertinent herein, or (b)

produce copies of documents reflecting the moving expenses claimed by RODRIGUEZ at issue

herein. (See Response, Exhibit Q). 4

23. On August 10, 2023, GC RENTALS served on Plaintiffs GC RENTALS’

“Amended Notice Of Deposition”, therein scheduling ELDON’s deposition for October 17, 2023

at 10:00 a.m. (See Exhibit 06 attached hereto).

24. On August 11, 2023, RODRIGUEZ filed their “Plaintiffs’ Second Amended

Petition” (“SAP”), therein seeking damages in the total amount of $1,459,184.64, not including

interest, attorney’s fees and costs, or other damages. Attached to the SAP as Exhibit C was

Plaintiffs’ May 7, 2020 Demand Letter, therein seeking inter alia damages in the following

amounts:

a. $11,391.00, as reimbursement for the cost of RODRIGUEZ’ move to Texas;

4 Therefore, there was no meet and confer regarding (a) subject responses to RFP Nos. 33 and 36, and (b) production of documents related to subject moving expenses, as required by Rule 191.2 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, entitled “Conference”, and Rule 3.11(I) of the Local Rules of the El Paso County, entitled "Hearings On Pre-Trial Motions, Exceptions, And Pleas— Pretrial Procedures (Civil Cases).”

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 8 of 28

AARB-1:179 b. $12,726.00, as reimbursement for the cost of the structural repairs and improvements incurred by RODRIGUEZ, and

c. $5,151.00, as reimbursement for the cost RODRIGUEZ moving back to California.

25. On November 8, 2023, the undersigned met with ELDON, in preparation for his

upcoming deposition scheduled for November 9, 2023. 5 At the meeting, the question of

Plaintiffs’ repair and moving expenses arose again, to which ELDON informed the undersigned

that an email previously had been sent to the undersigned by an unknown employee of ELDON’s

former company, “American Windows.”

26. Consequently, that same day, November 8, 2023, the undersigned proceeded to

examine the contents of his Microsoft Outlook client email folder for Plaintiffs, since the

undersigned’s Outlook Rules automatically forwards to the undersigned’s Outlook folder for

ELDON all of the emails sent from ELDON’s personal email addresses: eldondr@att.net, or

27. However, at first, the undersigned was unable to locate subject email, as subject

email was NOT in the undersigned’s Outlook folder for ELDON. Instead, after running a full

search of all of the undersigned’s Outlook folders, the undersigned discovered that subject email

was in the undersigned’s Outlook SPAM folder, because subject email had an unrecognizable

email address of “Eldon Rodriguez .” (See

subject “Exhibit No 1” attached to the Response, as Exhibit R). 6

5 Upon information and belief, GC RENTALS did not serve on Plaintiffs a second amended notice of deposition scheduling ELDON’s deposition for November 9, 2023. 6 GC RENTALS’ Motion, at page 2, twice admits that the undersigned’s reasoning for not producing said Exhibit was an “oversight.” (See Exhibit 07 attached hereto, Transcript Page 197, Lines 10-19). As now confirmed by the November 9, 2023, deposition transcript of ELDON, the failure to produce subject email was thus not intentional or Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 9 of 28

AARB-1:180 28. On November 9, 2023, ELDON’s deposition resumed for a third day. During said

deposition, as had occurred during ELDON’s previous depositions of June 19 and 20, 2023,

Defendants’ counsel examined ELDON as to the existence of written evidence of the repair

damages and moving expenses alleged by Plaintiffs. ELDON was persistent during examination

that he had incurred the alleged repairs and moving expenses. (See Exhibit 07 attached hereto,

Transcript page 5, lines 12-22; Transcript page 9, lines 23-25; Transcript page 11, lines 20-25;

Transcript page 12, lines 1-14; Transcript page 14, lines 23-25; Transcript page 15, lines 1-11;

Transcript page 24, lines 13-25; Transcript page 25, lines 1-20; Transcript page 26, lines 17-25;

Transcript page 33, lines 21-25; Transcript page 53, lines 10-25; Transcript page 94, lines 19-25;

Transcript page 95, lines 1-25; Transcript page 96, lines 1-25; and Transcript page 143, lines 13-

25). 7

29. On same date of November 9, 2023, after the conclusion of Defendants’ counsel

examination of ELDON, the undersigned counsel commenced his examination of ELDON, and

entered “Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1”, Bates-Stamped pages “001-0014” into evidence, because said

Exhibit No. 1 contained errors and omissions, and the undersigned sought to first tediously

clarify those deficiencies during Defendants’ counsel’s presence at the deposition. (See Exhibit

07 attached hereto, Transcript Pages 196-218) (See also Exhibit No. 1 attached as Response,

Exhibit R).

30. During the undersigned counsel’s examination of ELDON, on November 9, 2023,

for purposes of concealment or disregard of the Court’s Order, but rather was accidental, due to the unintended forwarding of said unrecognizable email address for ELDON, to the undersigned’s Outlook SPAM folder. 7 ELDON is approximately 84 years old and has memory problems due to a stroke, and could not accurately recall producing documentation concerning the alleged repairs subject of GC RENTALS’ RFP Nos. 33 and 36, as the undersigned had not disclosed to ELDON that subject email had finally been located by the undersigned in the undersigned’s Outlook SPAM folder.

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 10 of 28

AARB-1:181 ELDON testified at length regarding the alleged repairs and moving expenses. (See Exhibit 07

attached hereto, Transcript page 197, lines 10-25; Transcript page 198, lines 1-25; Transcript

page 199, lines 1-18; and Transcript page 204, lines 3-19).

31. On same date, November 9, 2023, undersigned counsel received an email from

counsel for GARDEA and SYNERGY, requesting RODRIGUEZ produce all emails between

undersigned counsel and RODRIGUEZ, which had been sent by RODRIGUEZ’ children. (See

Response, Exhibit S).

32. Perhaps more importantly, the next day, November 10, 2023, after completion of

the undersigned counsel’s line of questioning the previous day, November 9, 2023, Counsel for

Defendants GC RENTALS, HARMSTON, GARDEA, and SYNERGY, each had ample

opportunity to thoroughly examine ELDON under oath as to the contents of Exhibit No. 1. (See

Exhibit 08 attached hereto, Transcript page 5, lines 22-25; Transcript page 6, lines 1-10;

Transcript page 17, lines 2-25; Transcript page 18, lines 1-25; Transcript page 19, lines 1-25;

Transcript page 25, lines 21-25; Transcript page 26, lines 1-25; Transcript page 27, lines 1-25;

Transcript page 28, lines 1-25; Transcript page 29, lines 1-25; Transcript page 30, lines 1-25;

Transcript page 31, lines 1-25; Transcript page 32, lines 1-25; Transcript page 33, lines 1-2;

Transcript page 34, lines 19-25; Transcript page 35, line 25; Transcript page 36, lines 4-7;

Transcript page 38, lines 24-25; Transcript page 39, lines 1-9; and Transcript page 44, lines 11-

19).

33. Hence, on November 10, 2023, Counsel for Defendants GC RENTALS,

HARMSTON, GARDEA, and SYNERGY thoroughly examined ELDON to their full

satisfaction, and thereby waived any grounds for objection and sanctions herein, as to the

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 11 of 28

AARB-1:182 a. The requested records by RFP Nos. 33 and 36 at issue herein, and depicted on subject Exhibit No. 1, therein reflecting all repairs performed, repaired or corrected by RODRIGUEZ, in the amounts of $8,926.00 and $1,800.00, for a total amount of $10,726 for repair expenses; and

b. Moving expenses in the amounts of $11,391.38, $5,151.50 and $1,000.00, as depicted on subject Exhibit No. 1, for a total amount of $17,542.88 for moving expenses, which were NOT AT ALL subject of GC RENTALS' RFP Nos. 33 and 36, or any other discovery request.

(See Exhibit 08 attached hereto).

34. On same date, November 10, 2023, Maria Rodriguez’ (“MARIA”) deposition was

taken, with MARIA also deposed as to Plaintiffs’ moving expenses. (See Exhibit 09 attached

hereto, Transcript page 29, lines 8-24).

35. On November 13, 2023, Defendants GC RENTALS, HARMSTON, GARDEA,

and SYNERGY filed their “Defendants, GC Rentals and Management LLC d/b/a Realty One

Group Mendez Burk, Heather Harmston, Jaime Gardea, Synergy Construct LLC’s, Joint Motion

For Sanctions Against Plaintiffs, Motion To Show Cause and Motion For Emergency Hearing”

(“GC RENTALS’ Motion For Sanctions”).

36. On November 13, 2023, ABDEL-JABER sent an email to Court Coordinator

Loretta Mata (“MATA”) requesting a hearing be scheduled for the Joint Motion For Sanctions,

and thereby completely failing and disregarding her obligation to meet and confer with the

undersigned counsel. (See Response, Exhibit T). 8

37. On November 14, 2023, Ms. Terry Silva sent an email to MATA and all counsel

confirming that the Joint Motion For Sanctions, Show Cause and Motion for Emergency Hearing

8 ABDEL-JABER was then once again in blatant violation of (a) Rule 191.2 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, entitled “Conference”, and (b) Rule 3.11(I) of the Local Rules of the El Paso County, entitled "Hearings On Pre- Trial Motions, Exceptions, And Pleas— Pretrial Procedures (Civil Cases).”

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 12 of 28

AARB-1:183 has been set for November 28, 2023, at 2:00 PM. (See Response, Exhibit U).

38. On same date, November 14, 2023, this Court filed an “Order of Court Setting”

scheduling the Joint Motion For Sanctions, Show Cause and Motion for Emergency Hearing for

hearing on November 28, 2023, at 1:00 PM. (See Response, Exhibit V).

39. On November 15, 2023, undersigned counsel’s paralegal Denise D. Macias

(“MACIAS”) sent an email to Mr. Justiss Rasberry ordering the transcripts of the deposition of

Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez that were taken on November 9th and November 10th,

requesting confirmation that preparation of the transcripts would take approximately two to three

weeks. No confirmation or response was ever received from Mr. Rasberry, the court reporter for

GC RENTALS. (See Response, Exhibit W).

40. On November 16, 2023, MACIAS sent an email to Defendants’ counsel as a meet

and confer to ascertain their opposition to Plaintiffs' filing of a Motion for Continuance of the

hearing on GC RENTALS’ Motion For Sanctions. (See Exhibit 10 attached hereto).

41. On November 22, 2023, Defendant GC RENTALS served on Plaintiffs

“Defendant GC Rentals and Management, LLC d/b/a Realty One Group Mendez Burk’s Second

Supplemental Initial Disclosures.”

42. On November 28, 2023, RODRIGUEZ filed their “Motion For Continuance of

Hearing on Defendants GC Rentals and Management, LLC d/b/a Realty One Group Mendez

Burk, Heather Harmston, Jaime Gardea, Synergy Construct LLC’s, Joint Motion For Sanctions

Against Plaintiffs, Motion To Show Cause and Motion For Emergency Hearing” (“Motion For

Continuance”). (See Exhibits 11 and 11a-11e attached hereto).

43. On same date, November 28, 2023, RODRIGUEZ filed “Plaintiffs’ Response To

Defendants GC Rentals and Management, LLC d/b/a Realty One Group Mendez Burk, Heather

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 13 of 28

AARB-1:184 Harmston, Jaime Gardea, Synergy Construct LLC’s, Joint Motion For Sanctions Against

Plaintiffs, Motion To Show Cause and Motion For Emergency Hearing” (“Response”).

44. On same date, November 28, 2023, at 10:44 AM, MACIAS provided the Court

with a copy via email of said Motion For Continuance. (See Exhibit 12 attached hereto).

45. On same date, November 28, 2023, at 2:17 PM, Blake Downey, counsel for

Defendants JAIME GARDEA and SYNERGY CONSTRUCT LLC, informed the undersigned

via email that this Court had conducted a hearing on the Motion for Continuance of Motion For

Sanctions, and had denied same, and was starting the hearing on GC RENTALS’ Motion For

Sanctions. 9 (See Exhibit 13 attached hereto).

46. On same date, November 28, 2023, after concluding a hearing on another case,

the undersigned joined the hearing on GC RENTALS’ Motion For Sanctions that was already in

progress.

47. On December 4, 2023, this Court signed and filed an “Order on Defendants’ Joint

Motion For Sanctions, Motion To Show Cause and Motion For Emergency Hearing” (“Order”)

against Plaintiffs ELDON RODRIUEZ and MARIA RODRIGUEZ, therein:

a. Granting "Defendants' Joint Motion for Sanctions, Motion to Show Cause and Motion for Emergency Hearing",

b. Ordering Plaintiffs to pay expenses related to Defendants expenses of discovery, expenses for depositions, and taxable court costs pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 2l5.2(2); and

c. Ordering that all Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants are dismissed with prejudice to refiling pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 215.2(5).

(See Exhibit 14 attached hereto).

9 The undersigned also received a telephone call from ABDEL-JABER confirming that the Court had conducted the hearing on the Motion for Continuance of Motion For Sanctions, had denied same, and had starting the hearing on GC RENTALS’ Motion For Sanctions.

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 14 of 28

AARB-1:185 48. As of this filing, no findings of fact and conclusions of law have been filed in

these proceedings.

III. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES.

A. The Court Should Have Denied GC RENTALS’ Motion For Sanctions.

49. As stated in the Response, GC RENTALS’ Motion For Sanctions should have

been denied by the Court, and Plaintiffs awarded their reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses

for responding to same, since:

a. GC RENTALS’ Motion failed to prove that RODRIGUEZ did in fact not comply with the Court’s Order to "fully respond" to GC RENTALS’ Discovery Requests, considering subject Exhibit No. 1 was not discovered by the undersigned, in his SPAM folder, due to “oversight”, until the day before ELDON’s deposition, and therefore there was no actual or intended violation by Plaintiffs of the Court’s Order to "fully respond" to GC RENTALS’ Discovery Requests; 10

b. In accordance with TransAmerican, the only possible sanction herein that has a “nexus” or “direct relationship” between the alleged “misconduct and sanction imposed" is the $12,726.00 claimed by Plaintiffs, for the cost of the structural repairs and improvements incurred by RODRIGUEZ, in response to GC RENTALS’ RFP Nos. 33 and 36;

c. Defendants thoroughly examined ELDON to their full satisfaction, regarding subject deposition Exhibit No. 1, and thereby waived any grounds for objection and sanctions herein;

d. Counsel for Defendants GC RENTALS, HARMSTON, GARDEA, and SYNERGY, did so each examine ELDON to their satisfaction, at said deposition of November 10, 2023, and thereby waived any grounds for objection and sanctions herein; and

e. Defendants do not allege any bad faith, fraud or misrepresentation(s) by the Plaintiffs, or any callous disregard for the responsibilities of discovery under the rules by Plaintiffs’ counsel, and therefore there can be no prejudice or discovery violation herein.

10 According to the online Cambridge Dictionary, the meaning of “oversight” is "a mistake made because of a failure to notice something."

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 15 of 28

AARB-1:186 (Response, Pages 14 and 18, Paragraphs 45-46 and 60, respectively).

50. The Order’s imposition of “Death Penalty” sanctions herein thus can only be

deemed inappropriate, excessive and contrary to appropriate guidelines, particularly since:

a. GC RENTALS’ Second Discovery Responses had nothing to do with subject (a) moving expenses, or (b) RFP Nos. 33 and 36, regarding repair expenses;

b. GC RENTALS’ Motion to Compel thus had nothing to do with subject (a) moving expenses, or (b) RFP Nos. 33 and 36, regarding repair expenses;

c. The Order On GC RENTALS’ Motion To Compel therefore did not pertain to or address subject (a) moving expenses, or (b) RFP Nos. 33 and 36, regarding repair expenses; and

d. GC RENTALS’ Motion For Sanctions thus was baseless and without support, as concerns subject (a) moving expenses, or (b) RFP Nos. 33 and 36, regarding repair expenses.

51. Critically, Plaintiffs’ claims against HARMSTON, GARDEA and SYNERGY

were also dismissed with prejudice by the Order, even though HARMSTON, GARDEA and

SYNERGY had no standing or asserted rights in (a) GC RENTALS’ Second Discovery

Responses, (b) GC RENTALS’ Motion to Compel, and/or (c) the Order On GC RENTALS’

Motion To Compel.

52. As such, in dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against HARMSTON, GARDEA and

SYNERGY, with prejudice, the Order is arbitrary and capricious, tantamount to an abuse of

discretion.

53. For the foregoing reasons, the Court should vacate, modify, correct, and/or reform

its Order and set a new trial, because (a) GC RENTALS’ Motion should have been denied by the

Court as baseless, regarding subject moving and repair expenses and (b) Plaintiffs’ claims against

HARMSTON, GARDEA and SYNERGY should never have been dismissed.

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 16 of 28

AARB-1:187 B. The Court Failed To Comply With Applicable TRCP Rule 215 Legal Standards.

54. As stated in the Response, concerning the imposition of sanctions pursuant to

TRCP Rule 215.2(b), in Werley v. Cannon, 344 S.W.3d 527, at 532-533 (Tex. App. 2011), the

Eighth Court of Appeals applied the Texas Supreme Court’s two-part test established in

Transamerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991). (See Response, Pages

12-14, Paragraphs 40-44).

55. In Transamerican, at 917, the Texas Supreme Court considered whether TRCP

215 sanctions were "just", and “set the bounds of permissible sanctions under Rule 215 within

which the trial court is to exercise sound discretion”, therein holding that “whether an imposition

of sanctions is just is measured by two standards”, stating as follows:

First, a direct relationship must exist between the offensive conduct and the sanction imposed. This means that a just sanction must be directed against the abuse and toward remedying the prejudice caused the innocent party. It also means that the sanction should be visited upon the offender. The trial court must at least attempt to determine whether the offensive conduct is attributable to counsel only, or to the party only, or to both. ...

Second, just sanctions must not be excessive. The punishment should fit the crime. A sanction imposed for discovery abuse should be no more severe than necessary to satisfy its legitimate purposes. It follows that courts must consider the availability of less stringent sanctions and whether such lesser sanctions would fully promote compliance.

56. Here, the Court completely failed to abide by the Transamerican standards, in that

the Court (a) did not “attempt to determine whether the offensive conduct is attributable to

counsel only, or to the party only, or to both”, and (b) did not “consider the availability of less

stringent sanctions and whether such lesser sanctions would fully promote compliance."

57. Moreover, here, as in Transamerican:

The district court made no findings to support the sanctions imposed. Rule 215 does not require a trial court to make findings before imposing discovery Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 17 of 28

AARB-1:188 sanctions, and we do not add such a requirement here. We note only that we do not have the benefit of any explanation by the district court for the severity of its ruling. It would obviously be helpful for appellate review of sanctions, especially when severe, to have the benefit of the trial court's findings concerning the conduct which it considered to merit sanctions, and we commend this practice to our trial courts. See Thomas v. Capital Security Services, Inc., 836 F.2d 866, 882- 883 (5th Cir. 1988).

Id. at 919, footnote 9.

58. In the present case, as in Transamerican, it is not clear whether Plaintiffs or the

undersigned counsel, or both, or neither, should be faulted for the failure to produce subject

SPAM email prior to the final deposition of ELDON. Here, to paraphrase Transamerican, at

918-919:

Moreover, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the district court considered imposition of lesser sanctions or that such sanctions would not have been effective. If anything, the record strongly suggests that lesser sanctions should have been utilized and perhaps would have been effective. . . . The range of sanctions available to the district court under Rule 215 is quite broad. The district court dismissed TranAamerican’s (Plaintiffs's) claims against Toma (Defendants) and rendered default judgment for Toma (Defendants) on its counterclaim solely because, as the record before us establishes, Plaintiffs's president failed to present himself for his deposition. Nothing in the record before us even approaches justification for so severe a sanction. 11

59. Accordingly, the Court should vacate, modify, correct, and/or reform its Order and

set a new trial, because the Order herein (a) is not “just” within the meaning of TRCP Rule

215.2(b), (b) does not “determine whether the offensive conduct is attributable to counsel only,

or to the party only, or to both”, (c) did not “consider the availability of less stringent sanctions

and whether such lesser sanctions would fully promote compliance.”, and (d) made no findings

to support the sanctions imposed.

11 The situation herein is thus even more egregious than that in Transamerican, because in the case at hand Plaintiff ELDON presented himself for repeated depositions by three (3) attorneys for Defendants that lasted several days.

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 18 of 28

AARB-1:189 C. The Court’s Order Is Manifestly Unjust And Unconstitutional.

60. In Transamerican, the Texas Supreme Court was confronted with a case where, as

here, the sanction of dismissal was imposed against a party.

61. In TransAmerican, the Texas Supreme Court held that the severe discovery

sanction of dismissal imposed by the district court was not only “manifestly unjust”, in violation

of Rule 215, but also unconstitutional, stating at 917-918 as follows:

The imposition of very severe sanctions is limited, not only by these standards, but by constitutional due process. The sanctions the district court imposed against TransAmerican are the most devastating a trial court can assess against a party. When a trial court strikes a party's pleadings and dismisses its action or renders a default judgment against it for abuse of the discovery process, the court adjudicates the party's claims without regard to their merits but based instead upon the parties' conduct of discovery. "[T]here are constitutional limitations upon the power of courts, even in aid of their own valid processes, to dismiss an action without affording a party the opportunity for a hearing on the merits of his cause." Societe Internationale v. Rogers,357 U.S. 197, 209-10, 78 S.Ct. 1087, 1094, 2 L.Ed.2d 1255 (1958), citing Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas,212 U.S. 322, 350-51, 29 S.Ct. 370, 379-80, 53 L.Ed. 530 (1909), and Hovey v. Elliott,167 U.S. 409, 17 S.Ct. 841, 42 L.Ed. 215 (1897); accord Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee,456 U.S. 694, 705-06, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 2105-06, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982). Discovery sanctions cannot be used to adjudicate the merits of a party's claims or defenses unless a party's hindrance of the discovery process justifies a presumption that its claims or defenses lack merit. Insurance Corp. of Ireland,456 U.S. 694, 705-06, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 2105-06; Rogers,357 U.S. at 209-10, 78 S.Ct. at 1094; Hammond Packing,212 U.S. at 350- 51, 29 S.Ct. at 379-80. ...

Although punishment and deterrence are legitimate purposes for sanctions, National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc.,427 U.S. 639, 96 S.Ct. 2778, 49 L.Ed.2d 747 (1976) (per curiam); Bodnow Corp. v. City of Hondo,721 S.W.2d at 840 they do not justify trial by sanctions, Hammond Packing,212 U.S. at 350-51, 29 S.Ct. at 379-80; Hovey,167 U.S. at 413-14, 17 S.Ct. at 843. Sanctions which are so severe as to preclude presentation of the merits of the case should not be assessed absent a party's flagrant bad faith or counsel's callous disregard for the responsibilities of discovery under the rules. See National Hockey League,427 U.S. at 642-643, 96 S.Ct. at 2780-81. Transamerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913, 918-17 (Tex. 1991).

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 19 of 28

AARB-1:190 62. As the Texas Supreme Court noted in Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609, at 621,

footnote 4 (Tex. 2007):

The severity of sanctions is also limited by constitutional standards. TEX. CONST. art. I, § 13; Pennington v. Singleton, 606 S.W.2d 682, 690 (Tex. 1980) (noting that the article I, section 13 of the Texas Constitution makes the excessiveness of a fine "'a question for the court to decide under the facts of each particular case'" (quoting State v. Galveston, H. S.A. Ry. Co., 100 Tex. 153, 97 S.W. 71, 78 (1906), rev'd on other grounds, 210 U.S. 217, 28 S.Ct. 638, 52 L.Ed. 1031 (1908)); see also Flores v. Millennium Interests, Ltd., 185 S.W.3d 427, 436 (Tex. 2005) (Wainwright, J., concurring).

63. The Eighth Court of Appeals has repeatedly concurred, stating in Marquez v.

Providence Memorial Hospital, 57 S.W.3d 585, at 595-596 (Tex. App. 2001):

As a constitutional matter, discovery sanctions cannot be used to adjudicate the merits of a party's claims or defenses unless a party's hindrance of the discovery process justifies a presumption that its claims or defenses lack merit. TransAmerican, 811 S.W.2d at 918, citing Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie desBauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 705-06, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 2105- 06, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982). Further, sanctions which preclude presentation of the merits of the case should not be assessed absent a party's flagrant bad faith or counsel's callous disregard for the responsibilities of discovery under the rules. TransAmerican, 811 S.W.2d at 918, citing National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 642-43, 96 S.Ct. 2778, 2780-81, 49 L.Ed.2d 747 (1976).

(See also Morgan v. Michael, No. 08-00-00556-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 16, 2003); Cass v. Stephens, 156 S.W.3d 38, at 77 (Tex. App. 2004); Werley v. Cannon, 344 S.W.3d 527, at 532-533 (Tex. App. 2011); Jones-Hospod v. Hospod, No. 08-22-00066-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 17, 2023).

64. Accordingly, the Court should vacate, modify, correct, and/or reform its Order and

set a new trial, because the Order herein (a) is “manifestly unjust” within the meaning of TRCP

Rule 215.2(b), (b) unconstitutional, and (c) is completely devoid of any finding of Plaintiff's

flagrant bad faith, or counsel's callous disregard for the responsibilities of discovery under the

rules.

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 20 of 28

AARB-1:191 D. The Court Also Abused Its Discretion By Not Imposing Lesser Sanctions First.

65. Although involving sanctions imposed under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies

Code, Chapter 10, the Texas Supreme Court generally noted in Low v. Henry, at 620:

The amount of the sanction is limited by the trial court's duty to exercise sound discretion. Powell, 811 S.W.2d at 917. A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles, not when it simply exercises that discretion in a different manner than reviewing appellate courts might. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985). In Powell we held that a sanction under rule 215 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, now rule 215.2, must relate directly to the abuse found and "be no more severe than necessary to satisfy its legitimate purpose." Powell, 811 S.W.2d at 917. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 215.2 allows a trial court to disallow any further discovery; charge certain expenses, costs, or attorney's fees of one party against the offending party; order certain facts to be established as true; limit a party's ability to defend against or bring certain claims; strike pleadings or parts of pleadings; or find a party in contempt of court. In contrast, Chapter 10 authorizes a sanction ordering the offending party to, among other things, pay a penalty into the court, as ordered in this case. TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE § 10.004. The only restriction on the amount of the penalty in the language of the statute is that the "sanction must be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated." Id. § 10.004(b); see, e.g., Skepnek v. Mynatt, 8 S.W.3d 377, 380 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1999, pet. denied) (upholding $25,000 sanction to be paid into registry of court under Chapter 10). The legislative history does not shed light on the question.

Generally, a sanction cannot be excessive nor should it be assessed without appropriate guidelines. See Powell, 811 S.W.2d at 917. Although this Court has not specifically identified factors for a trial court to consider when assessing penalties under Chapter 10, see Altus Commc'ns., Inc. v. Meltzer Martin, Inc., 829 S.W.2d 878, 883 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, no writ), the absence of an explanation of how a trial court determined that amount of sanctions when those sanctions are especially severe is inadequate. For example, in Cire v. Cummings, we held the trial court was required to explain that it considered lesser sanctions before imposing severe, "death penalty" sanctions. 134 S.W.3d at 842. In Powell, we held that the dismissal of plaintiff's case with prejudice for failing to appear for a deposition was an excessive sanction under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 215. 811 S.W.2d at 918-19.

66. Under Transamerican, and the case precedents of the Eighth Court of Appeals, the

only possible sanction herein that has a “nexus” or “direct relationship” between the alleged

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 21 of 28

AARB-1:192 “misconduct and sanction imposed", relating to subject GC RENTALS’ RFP Nos. 33 and 36, is

the $12,726.00 claimed by Plaintiffs, for the cost of the structural repairs and improvements

incurred by RODRIGUEZ. 12

67. Therefore, as concerns subject GC RENTALS’ RFP Nos. 33 and 36, regarding the

$12,726.00 claimed by Plaintiffs, for the cost of the structural repairs and improvements incurred

by RODRIGUEZ, the only possible sanction herein that the Court could have properly

considered or ordered was:

a. That any written documents and exhibits not produced by Plaintiffs regarding subject structural repairs and improvements be excluded from any trial or hearing in this matter;

b. But that any prior or subsequent sworn testimony adduced by Plaintiffs regarding subject structural repairs and improvements would not be excluded or denied.

68. At worst, the most severe sanctions that could have been imposed herein, that

bear a “nexus” or “direct relationship” between the alleged “misconduct and sanction imposed",

and subject “Exhibit No. 1”, are the $29,268.00 claimed herein by Plaintiffs, as follows:

c. $11,391.00, as reimbursement for the cost of RODRIGUEZ’ move to Texas;

d. $12,726.00, as reimbursement for the cost of the structural repairs and improvements incurred by RODRIGUEZ, and

e. $5,151.00, as reimbursement for the cost RODRIGUEZ moving back to California.

(See Plaintiffs’ “Original Petition And Request For Disclosure” (“Petition”), and Plaintiffs’ May

7, 2020 Demand Letter, attached to the Petition as Exhibit C).

69. Instead, the Order herein (a) improperly adjudicated the merits of all of Plaintiffs'

12 As noted above, it is significant for purposes of subject Motion that GC RENTALS’ Discovery Requests nowhere request copies of documents reflecting the moving expenses claimed by RODRIGUEZ.

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 22 of 28

AARB-1:193 claims, with prejudice, and without trial, in complete disregard of the constitutional rights of the

Plaintiffs, and (b) is therefore “manifestly unjust”, in:

a. Ordering Plaintiffs to pay an undetermined amount of expenses related to Defendants (sic) expenses of discovery, expenses for depositions, and taxable court costs pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 2l5.2(2); and

b. Ordering that all of Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants in the total amount of $1,459,184.64, not including interest, attorney’s fees and costs, or other damages, be dismissed with prejudice to refiling pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 215.2(5).

70. Simply stated, the Order herein is (a) clearly erroneous in law and fact, (b)

constitutes legal error, (c) is arbitrary and capricious, tantamount to an abuse of discretion, (d)

contrary to the principles of equity and good conscience and equal protection, and (e) violates

the substantive and procedural due process rights afforded Plaintiffs under the Constitution of

the State of Texas, and that of the United States of America.

E. Bases For Motion.

71. TRCP Rule 320, entitled "Motion And Action Of Court Thereon", provides in

pertinent part as follows:

New trials may be granted and judgment set aside for good cause, on motion or on the court's own motion on such terms as the court shall direct. New trials may be granted when the damages are manifestly too small or too large. When it appears to the court that a new trial should be granted on a point or points that affect only a part of the matters in controversy and that such part is clearly separable without unfairness to the parties, the court may grant a new trial as to that part only, provided that a separate trial on unliquidated damages alone shall not be ordered if liability issues are contested. Each motion for new trial shall be in writing and signed by the party or his attorney.

72. Here, in accordance with TRCP Rule 320, the Court should set aside its Order and

set a new trial, because (a) “good cause” exists, (b) the Order’s prejudicial dismissal of Plaintiffs’

case is not “just” within the meaning of TRCP Rule 215.2(b), and (c) the damages resulting from

said Order are manifestly too large. Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 23 of 28

AARB-1:194 73. TRCP Rule 329b, entitled "Time For Filing Motions", provides in pertinent part

The following rules shall be applicable to motions for new trial and motions to modify, correct, or reform judgments (other than motions to correct the record under Rule 316) in all district and county courts:

(a) A motion for new trial, if filed, shall be filed prior to or within thirty days after the judgment or other order complained of is signed. ...

(d) The trial court, regardless of whether an appeal has been perfected, has plenary power to grant a new trial or to vacate, modify, correct, or reform the judgment within thirty days after the judgment is signed.

(e) If a motion for new trial is timely filed by any party, the trial court, regardless of whether an appeal has been perfected, has plenary power to grant a new trial or to vacate, modify, correct, or reform the judgment until thirty days after all such timely-filed motions are overruled, either by a written and signed order or by operation of law, whichever occurs first.

(f) On expiration of the time within which the trial court has plenary power, a judgment cannot be set aside by the trial court except by bill of review for sufficient cause, filed within the time allowed by law; provided that the court may at any time correct a clerical error in the record of a judgment and render judgment nunc pro tunc under Rule 316, and may also sign an order declaring a previous judgment or order to be void because signed after the court's plenary power had expired.

(g) A motion to modify, correct, or reform a judgment (as distinguished from motion to correct the record of a judgment under Rule 316), if filed, shall be filed and determined within the time prescribed by this rule for a motion for new trial and shall extend the trial court's plenary power and the time for perfecting an appeal in the same manner as a motion for new trial. Each such motion shall be in writing and signed by the party or his attorney and shall specify the respects in which the judgment should be modified, corrected, or reformed. The overruling of such a motion shall not preclude the filing of a motion for new trial, nor shall the overruling of.

74. In the instant case, in accordance with TRCP Rule 329b, the Court should vacate,

modify, correct, and/or reform its Order, and set a new trial, because the Order herein (a) is not

“just” within the meaning of TRCP Rule 215.2(b), (b) fails to abide by applicable case

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 24 of 28

AARB-1:195 precedents of the Eighth Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court, and (c) inappropriately

imposed excessive discovery sanctions vastly more severe than necessary to satisfy the

legitimate purposes of TRCP Rule 215.

F. Conclusion.

75. For the reasons stated above, the Court’s Order is completely at odds with the

Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Transamerican, because the Order (a) failed to first establish

a direct “nexus” and “relationship” between the allegedly “offensive conduct and the sanction

imposed”, and then secondly (b) failed to make certain that any sanction imposed for discovery

abuse should be no more severe than necessary to satisfy its legitimate purposes, which includes

securing compliance with discovery rules, deterring other litigants from similar misconduct, and

punishing violators.

76. The Court’s Order is also completely at odds with the cases of the Eighth Court of

Appeals’ adopting the Transamerican’s two-part test. See Cap Rock Electric Cooperative, Inc. v.

Texas Utilities Elec. Co., 874 S.W.2d 92, 99-100 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1994, no writ); Marquez v.

Providence Memorial Hospital, 57 S.W.3d 585 (Tex. App. 2001); Morgan v. Michael, No. 08-00-

00556-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 16, 2003); Cass v. Stephens, 156 S.W.3d 38, at 77 (Tex. App. 2004);

Jones-Hospod v. Hospod, No. 08-22-00066-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 17, 2023). (See also Plaintiffs’

Response, pages 12-17, paragraphs 39-56).

77. Because the Order herein (a) is not “just” within the meaning of TRCP Rule

215.2(b), (b) fails to abide by applicable case precedents of the Eighth Court of Appeals and the

Texas Supreme Court, (c) inappropriately imposed excessive discovery sanctions vastly more

severe than necessary to satisfy the legitimate purposes of TRCP Rule 215, and (d) is

unconstitutional, the Order herein is therefore:

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 25 of 28

AARB-1:196 c. Clearly erroneous in law and fact;

d. Constitutes legal error;

e. Arbitrary and capricious, tantamount to an abuse of discretion, ;

f. Contrary to the principles of equity and good conscience and equal protection; and

g. Violates the substantive and procedural due process rights afforded Plaintiffs under the Constitution of the State of Texas, and the United States of America.

(See also Response, Pages 14-17, Paragraphs 45-54).

78. For the foregoing reasons, the Court should (a) grant this Motion, (b) reconsider,

modify, correct, reform, vacate, and set aside the Order in the above-styled and -numbered cause

of action, and (c) set a new trial.

IV. PRAYER.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, AND FOR THE FOREGOING

REASONS, Plaintiffs ELDON RODRIGUEZ and MARIA RODRIGUEZ pray the Court to (a)

reconsider, modify, correct, reform, vacate, and set aside the Order in the above-styled and -

numbered cause of action, (b) set a new trial, and (c) award all other relief to which the Plaintiffs

are entitled.

January 3, 2024 Respectfully submitted, THE NEVAREZ LAW FIRM, PC 7362 Remcon Circle El Paso, Texas 79912 Telephone: (915) 225-2255 Facsimiles: (915) 845-3405 Email: MNevarez@LawOfficesMRN.com

/s/ Michael R. Nevarez MICHAEL R. NEVAREZ State of Texas Bar No. 14933400 Attorney for Plaintiffs Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 26 of 28

AARB-1:197 VERIFICATION

I, MICHAEL R. NEVAREZ, have read the foregoing “Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider,

Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set

Aside And Motion For New Trial”, prepared and filed by me, on behalf of Plaintiffs ELDON

RODRIGUEZ and MARIA RODRIGUEZ, and do hereby verify under penalty of perjury that all

matters stated therein are within my personal knowledge, and are true and correct to the best of

my knowledge and belief. (See also Exhibit No. 15 attached hereto).

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 27 of 28

AARB-1:198 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

TO RECONSIDER, MOTION TO MODIFY, MOTION TO CORRECT, MOTION TO

REFORM, MOTION TO VACATE, AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE, with all supporting

attachments, exhibits, and affidavits referenced therein, if any, was served by regular first-class

mail, postage prepaid, and/or by e-Filing via an Electronic Filing Service Provider, and/or via

facsimile, to the following parties in interest, on this January 3, 2024:

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT HEATHER HARMSTON: MARIO A. GONZALEZ 1522 Montana Avenue, Suite 100 El Paso, Texas 79902 Telephone: (915) 543-9802 Email: mario@gonzalezlawfirm.com

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS JAIME GARDEA, SYNERGY CONSTRUCT LLC: M. BLAKE DOWNEY SCOTTHULSE PC One San Jacinto Plaza 201 E. Main Drive, Suite 1100 El Paso, Texas 79901 Telephone: (915) 533-2493 Emails: bdow@scotthulse.com;

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS GC RENTALS: JAMES A. MARTINEZ HALA A. ABDEL-JABER MOUNCE, GREEN, MYERS, SAFI, PAXSON & GALATZAN P.O. Box 1977 El Paso, Texas 79999-1977 Telephone: (915) 532-2000 Facsimile: (915) 541-1597 Emails: martinezja@jmeplaw.com; Abdel-jaber@mgmsg.com

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside And Motion For New Trial Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 28 of 28

AARB-1:199 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Michael Nevarez Bar No. 14933400 MRN@MRN4Law.com Envelope ID: 83042492 Filing Code Description: Motion for New Trial Filing Description: Plaintiffs' Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set Aside and Motion For New Trial / MR Status as of 1/3/2024 3:26 PM MST

Virginia Munoz vmunoz@mgmsg.com 1/3/2024 1:23:17 PM SENT

M. BlakeDowney bdow@scotthulse.com 1/3/2024 1:23:17 PM SENT

Terry Silva tsilva@mgmsg.com 1/3/2024 1:23:17 PM SENT

michael nevarez mnevarez@lawofficesmrn.com 1/3/2024 1:23:17 PM SENT

Denise Macias paralegal-2@lawofficesmrn.com 1/3/2024 1:23:17 PM SENT

Georgina Gallegos ggal@scotthulse.com 1/3/2024 1:23:17 PM SENT

Guy McGunegle gmcg@scotthulse.com 1/3/2024 1:23:17 PM SENT

Mario Gonzalez mario@gonzalezlawfirm.com 1/3/2024 1:23:17 PM SENT

Loretta Mata lor.mata@epcounty.com 1/3/2024 1:23:17 PM SENT

Roberta Medina rmedina@rasberry.com 1/3/2024 1:23:17 PM SENT

James A.Martinez martinezja@jmeplaw.com 1/3/2024 1:23:17 PM SENT

James Martinez eservice@jmeplaw.com 1/3/2024 1:23:17 PM SENT

Hala Abdel-Jabar abdel-jaber@mgmsg.com 1/3/2024 1:23:17 PM SENT

AARB-1:200 Date Calculator https://www.calculator.net/date-calculator.html?today2=12%2F04%2F2023&c2op=%2B&c2y...

Date Calculator Days Between Two Dates Find the number of years, months, weeks, and days between dates. Click "Settings" to define holidays.

Add to or Subtract from a Date Other Calculators Result Age Date Time Hours Feb 17, 2024, Saturday GPA Grade is the date 75 days after Dec 4, 2023 Height Concrete IP Subnet Bra Size December 2023 February 2024 Password Generator Dice Roller S M T W T F S S M T W T F S Conversion More Other Calculators 1 2 1 2 3 Financial | Fitness and Health | Math | Other 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29

1 of 5 12/26/2023, 8:16 AM AARB-1:201 Date Calculator https://www.calculator.net/date-calculator.html?today2=12%2F04%2F2023&c2op=%2B&c2y...

The Gregorian calendar is the most prevalently used calendar today. Within this calendar, a standard year consists of 365 days with a leap day being introduced to the month of February during a leap year. The months of April, June, September, and November have 30 days, while the rest have 31 days except for February, which has 28 days in a standard year, and 29 in a leap year. The Gregorian calendar is a reformed version of the Julian calendar, which was itself a modification of the ancient Roman calendar. The ancient Roman calendar was believed to be an observational lunar calendar, based on the cycles of the moon's phases. The Romans were then believed to have adopted a 10-month calendar with 304 days, leaving the remaining 50 or so days as an unorganized winter. This calendar allowed the summer and winter months to become completely misplaced, leading to the adoption of more accurate calendars.

2 of 5 12/26/2023, 8:16 AM AARB-1:202 Date Calculator https://www.calculator.net/date-calculator.html?today2=12%2F04%2F2023&c2op=%2B&c2y...

The Republican calendar later used by Rome followed Greek calendars in its assumptions of 29.5 days in a lunar cycle and 12.5 synodic months in a solar year, which align every fourth year upon the addition of the intercalary months of January and February. From this point, many attempts were made to align the Republican calendar with the solar year including the addition of an extra month to certain years to supplant the lack of days in a particular year. In 46 BC, the calendar was further reformed by Julius Caesar, introducing an algorithm that removed the dependence of calendars from the observation of the new moon. In order to accomplish this, Caesar inserted an additional 10 days into the Republican calendar, making the total number of days in a year 365. He also added the intercalation of a leap day every fourth year, all in an attempt to further synchronize the Roman calendar with the solar year. Despite all efforts, the Julian calendar still required further reform, since the calendar drifted with respect to the equinoxes and solstices by approximately 11 minutes per year. By 1582, this resulted in a difference of 10 days from what was expected. Pope Gregory XIII addressed this by essentially skipping 10 days in the date, making the day after October 4, 1582, October 15. An adjustment was also made to the algorithm of the Julian calendar that changed which century years would be considered leap years. Under the Gregorian calendar, century years not divisible by 400 would not be leap years. These changes reduced the error from 1 day in 128 years, to 1 day in 3,030 years with respect to the current value of the mean solar year. The adoption of the Gregorian calendar occurred slowly over a period of centuries, and despite many proposals to further reform the calendar, the Gregorian Calendar still prevails as the most commonly used dating system worldwide.

A holiday is a day that, either by custom or by law, is set aside such that regular activities like going to work or school are suspended, or at least reduced. The term "holiday" can be interpreted differently, depending on the region. In the U.S., paid leave is typically referred to as "vacation," while national, religious, or cultural days off are referred to exclusively as "holiday." In some regions, however, such as the United Kingdom or former British colonies, the term holiday can also refer to paid leave. Generally, holidays are meant to commemorate some event, person, or group of cultural or religious significance. Although certain holidays, such as Christmas and New Year's Day, are widely celebrated worldwide, most countries have their own set of holidays that are specific to the country, and even the same holidays may be observed differently within countries: some may receive a full suspension of typical daily activities, while others may only get partial days off. Certain countries have holidays that essentially shut down almost

3 of 5 12/26/2023, 8:16 AM AARB-1:203 Date Calculator https://www.calculator.net/date-calculator.html?today2=12%2F04%2F2023&c2op=%2B&c2y...

all businesses. As an example, in Brazil, Carnaval do Brasil results in almost a full week in which only industrial production, retail establishments, or carnival-related businesses, function. This calculator is mainly geared towards U.S. holidays, but holidays specific to a given country can be entered manually. Certain holidays can also be excluded. For a further level of specificity, federal holidays in the U.S. refer to holidays that have been recognized by the U.S. government; on these days, non-essential federal government offices are closed, and all federal employees receive paid leave. This is not necessarily true in the private sector, however, and which federal holidays a private sector employee receives is largely dependent on the discretion of the company. In some cases, an employee who is required to work on a federal holiday may receive compensation in the form of holiday pay in addition to their regular wages. Certain holidays such as New Year's Day are referred to as "fixed holidays," since they fall on the same date every year. Others, such as the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., don't have a fixed date, because they occur on a "floating Monday"; in this particular case, the holiday occurs on the third Monday of January. Another widely observed holiday in the U.S., Thanksgiving, occurs on a "floating Thursday," the fourth Thursday In November, hence the dates of these holidays vary by year. Below are two tables showing the dates of federal holidays in the U.S. for 2023 and 2024.

2023 U.S. Federal Holidays New Year's Day Jan. 1, 2023 Martin Luther King Jr. Day Jan. 16, 2023 President's Day Feb. 20, 2023 Memorial Day May. 29, 2023 Juneteenth Day Jun. 19, 2023 Independence Day Jul. 4, 2023 Labor Day Sep. 4, 2023 Columbus Day Oct. 9, 2023 Veteran's Day Nov. 11, 2023 Thanksgiving Nov. 23, 2023 Christmas Dec. 25, 2023

4 of 5 12/26/2023, 8:16 AM AARB-1:204 Date Calculator https://www.calculator.net/date-calculator.html?today2=12%2F04%2F2023&c2op=%2B&c2y...

New Year's Day Jan. 1, 2024 Martin Luther King Jr. Day Jan. 15, 2024 President's Day Feb. 19, 2024 Memorial Day May. 27, 2024 Juneteenth Day Jun. 19, 2024 Independence Day Jul. 4, 2024 Labor Day Sep. 2, 2024 Columbus Day Oct. 14, 2024 Veteran's Day Nov. 11, 2024 Thanksgiving Nov. 28, 2024 Christmas Dec. 25, 2024

about us | sitemap | terms of use | privacy policy © 2008 - 2023 calculator.net

5 of 5 12/26/2023, 8:16 AM AARB-1:205 El Paso County - 171st District Court Filed 2/16/2024 11:59 AM Norma Favela Barceleau District Clerk El Paso County 2021DCV2346 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS 171ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ELDON RODRIGUEZ, and § MARIA RODRIGUEZ § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § CAUSE NUMBER: 2021-DCV-2346 § HEATHER HARMSTON, § JAIME GARDEA, § SYNERGY CONSTRUCT LLC, § GC RENTALS AND MANAGEMENT LLC § d/b/a REALTY ONE GROUP MENDEZ BURK, § GABRIEL MENDEZ, and § MIGUEL CHACON, § § Defendants. §

NOTICE OF APPEAL TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiffs/Appellants ELDON RODRIGUEZ and MARIA

RODRIGUEZ (hereinafter jointly referred to as “Plaintiffs”), by and through the undersigned

counsel of record, hereby timely file this Notice Of Appeal (“Notice”), pursuant to Rules 25.1

and 26.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and in support thereof would respectfully

show onto the Court as follows:

1. The trial court number and style is: Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez vs.

Heather Harmston, Jaime Gardea, Synergy Construct LLC, GC Rentals and

Management LLC d/b/a Realty One Group Mendez Burk, Gabriel Mendez, and

Miguel Chacon, in the 171st District Court, El Paso County, Texas, Cause No.

2021-DCV-2346.

2. The date the judgment and/or order appealed from herein, entitled “Order on

AARB-1:206 Defendants’ Joint Motion For Sanctions, Motion To Show Cause and Motion For

Emergency Hearing” (“Order”), was signed on December 4, 2023.

a. Pursuant to Rule 25.1(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, this

Appeal is timely, as this Notice is hereby filed prior to February 17, 2024,

which is:

1) Within the seventy-five (75) days after the Order was signed;

2) After the timely filing by Plaintiffs, on January 3, 2024, of

“Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify, Motion To

Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion To Set

Aside, and Motion For New Trial”, which was also timely filed

within the initial thirty (30) day period after the signing of the

Order on December 4, 2023, and

3) After the “Plaintiffs’ Motion To Reconsider, Motion To Modify,

Motion To Correct, Motion To Reform, Motion To Vacate, Motion

To Set Aside, and Motion For New Trial” has been deemed denied

as per Rule 329b(c) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

3. Plaintiffs desire to appeal the Order, as it constitutes a final and appealable

judgment by its terms.

4. The Court to which this appeal is to is The Eighth Court of Appeals of Texas.

5. The name of the parties filing this Notice are ELDON RODRIGUEZ and MARIA

6. This is not an accelerated or restricted appeal.

Notice Of Appeal Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 2 of 4

AARB-1:207 February 16, 2024 THE NEVAREZ LAW FIRM, PC 7362 Remcon Circle El Paso, Texas 79912 Telephone: (915) 225-2255 Facsimiles: (915) 845-3405 Email: MNevarez@LawOfficesMRN.com

/s/ Michael R. Nevarez MICHAEL R. NEVAREZ State of Texas Bar No. 14933400

Attorney for Plaintiffs/Appellants

Notice Of Appeal Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 3 of 4

AARB-1:208 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF APPEAL,

with all supporting attachments, exhibits, and affidavits referenced therein, if any, was served

either by regular first-class mail, postage prepaid, and/or e-Filing via an Electronic Filing Service

Provider, and/or via facsimile, to the following parties in interest, on or before February 16,

2024:

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT HEATHER HARMSTON: MARIO A. GONZALEZ 1522 Montana Avenue, Suite 100 El Paso, Texas 79902 Telephone: (915) 543-9802 Email: mario@gonzalezlawfirm.com

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS JAIME GARDEA, SYNERGY CONSTRUCT LLC: M. BLAKE DOWNEY SCOTTHULSE PC One San Jacinto Plaza 201 E. Main Drive, Suite 1100 El Paso, Texas 79901 Telephone: (915) 533-2493 Emails: bdow@scotthulse.com;

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS GC RENTALS: JAMES A. MARTINEZ HALA A. ABDEL-JABER MOUNCE, GREEN, MYERS, SAFI, PAXSON & GALATZAN P.O. Box 1977 El Paso, Texas 79999-1977 Telephone: (915) 532-2000 Facsimile: (915) 541-1597 Emails: martinezja@jmeplaw.com; Abdel-jaber@mgmsg.com

Notice Of Appeal Eldon and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, et al. El Paso County, 171st District Court, Cause Number 2021-DCV-2346 Page 4 of 4

AARB-1:209 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Michael Nevarez Bar No. 14933400 MRN@MRN4Law.com Envelope ID: 84603136 Filing Code Description: Notice of Appeal Filing Description: NOTICE OF APPEAL / JM Status as of 2/16/2024 12:25 PM MST

James A.Martinez martinezja@jmeplaw.com 2/16/2024 11:59:59 AM SENT

James Martinez eservice@jmeplaw.com 2/16/2024 11:59:59 AM SENT

Hala Abdel-Jabar abdel-jaber@mgmsg.com 2/16/2024 11:59:59 AM SENT

Virginia Munoz vmunoz@mgmsg.com 2/16/2024 11:59:59 AM SENT

M. BlakeDowney bdow@scotthulse.com 2/16/2024 11:59:59 AM SENT

Terry Silva tsilva@mgmsg.com 2/16/2024 11:59:59 AM SENT

michael nevarez mnevarez@lawofficesmrn.com 2/16/2024 11:59:59 AM SENT

Denise Macias paralegal-2@lawofficesmrn.com 2/16/2024 11:59:59 AM SENT

Loretta Mata lor.mata@epcounty.com 2/16/2024 11:59:59 AM SENT

Georgina Gallegos ggal@scotthulse.com 2/16/2024 11:59:59 AM SENT

Guy McGunegle gmcg@scotthulse.com 2/16/2024 11:59:59 AM SENT

Mario Gonzalez mario@gonzalezlawfirm.com 2/16/2024 11:59:59 AM SENT

Roberta Medina rmedina@rasberry.com 2/16/2024 11:59:59 AM SENT

AARB-1:210 FILE COPY

COURT OF APPEALS CHIEF JUSTICE CLERK Jeff Alley EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS Elizabeth G. Flores JUSTICES EL PASO COUNTY COURTHOUSE Gina M. Palafox 500 E. SAN ANTONIO AVE., SUITE 1203 Lisa Soto EL PASO, TEXAS 79901-2408 (915) 546-2240 FAX (915) 546-2252 WWW.TXCOURTS.GOV/8THCOA.ASPX

April 2, 2024

Hon. Mario A. Gonzalez Hon. James A. Martinez 1707 Wyoming Ave. Mounce, Green, Myers, Safi, Paxson, & El Paso, TX 79902 Galatzan * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * P.O. Box 1977 El Paso, TX 79999 Hon.Michael Blake Downey * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * ScottHulse 201 E Main Dr Hon. Michael Nevarez El Paso, TX 79901-1340 The Nevarez Law Firm, PC * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * 7362 Remcon Circle El Paso, TX 79912 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 08-24-00024-CV Trial Court Case Number: 2021DCV2346

Style: Eldon Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez v. Heather Harmston, Jaime Gardea, Synergy Constuct LLC, and GC Rentals and Management LLC d/b/a Realty One Group Mendez Burk

I have this day filed the Clerk’s Record (3 volumes) for the above styled and numbered cause.

Respectfully yours,

ELIZABETH G. FLORES, CLERK

By Ariana Endlich, Deputy Clerk

cc: Norma L. Favela Barceleau

AARB-1:211 l ' _ D.tj:-l:;:::e-::: ~f E:...s. io:; A. Settlement Statement zr:d t:rb3o Dt• elo?111e1u

B. T cofLoan I. 0 FHA 2. 0 FmHA J. 0 Conv Unins 6. File Number 7. Loan :-<"mhct 4. 0 VA 5. 0 Conv Ins. 6. D Seller Finance 180548-EV

C. Note: T1 1;s l"or1n ;, fum: shed to 8 :vo rou "sta.tamcml of actu111 settlement costs. Amount!' r11id to and by the C!ltl!ment o.g.ent 2re ~hown. Item~ ma.r~ed "(,1.0.c.)" were uaid outside the closln~; thcv ore shown here for infonnationaI purposes nn d arc not me ' I ud c d.10 tI1c tolaIs. D. Name & Addms of Borrower E. Name & Address of Seller F. Nnme & Address of Lender Eldon Roddgucz rin d Mui" Rodrii:ucz Heather Hst1·m5ton 7750 Lil11c Apt 122 2500 H•wlcy Circle El run, TX 799 15 El Paso, TX 79903 Sec Add endum '

G. Propeny Location H. Selllement Agent Name WC$1Star Title, LLC CIELO VISTA !'ARK, Lot 16, lllocl< 143, El Paso County, TX 641 N. Sl•nton 9328 Mc F•ll Orlve El Po so, TX 7990 I Tnx 10: XX-XXXXXXX F.I raso, TX 79925 Underwritten Dy; \Vcstcor

Place of Settlement I. Settlement Dole Wemiar Tille, LLC J/2812018 64 1 N. Stanton Ste. 200 Fund: El Paso, TX 7990 I

J. Sun,n1uy of Oo1·1•owcr1s Tr:insnction I<. Summary of Seller's Transochon 100 Gross Amount Due from Borrower 400. Gro.1s Amount Due to Seller 101. Contrnct SO\lcs Price 5275,000.00 40 I. Con!ract Sales Price I 02. Personal Property 402. Personal Propcny I03. Scttlemen1 Charges to borrower 5344.00 403. 104. 404. 105. 405. Adju scmcnts for items paid by seller In :u.lv;mcc Adjustments for items: paid by seller in advance I06. Ci!y property taxes 406. City property taxes 107. Other 407. Olher I08. County property taxes 408. County property laxe.s 109. School property tnxes 409. School property laxes 110. HOA 410. HOA II I. Flood Insurance 41 !. flood Insurance 112. 412. 113. 413. 114. 414. 115. 415. 116. 416. 120. Gross Amount Due From Borrower S27S 344.00 420. Gross Amount Due lo Seller 200. t\mou111s Pnid By Or in Ocha Jr Of Borrower 500. lleduc1ions In Amoun t Due 10 Seller 201. Deposit or c.imcsl money Sl,000.00 50 I. Excess Deposit 202. Principal nmount or new loo.n(;c;) 502. Selllemenl Cherges to Seller(linc 1400) 203. Ex isling loan(s) taken subject to 503. Existing Loan(s) Taken Subject to 204. Loon Amount 2nd Lien 504. Payoff of first mortgage loan 205. 505. Payoff of second mortgage lonn 206. Seller ContribnJion 506. Seller Con1ribu1ion 207. Oplion Fee SI00.00 507. Op1io11 Fee 208. 508. 209. 509. Adju~tmcnrs for items unp:litl by stltcr Adius1me111s for Items unpaid by seller 210. City propeny taxes 01/01/18 03/28/18 S8(7.90 510. City property tnxcs 01/01/18 03/28/18 211. Other 51 I. Other 212. Coun1y pro1>crty tnxes 512. County properly laxes 213. School property Jn.'°s 513. School property lllXes 214. HOA 514. HOA 215. Flood Insurance S15. Flood Insurance 216. 516. 217. 517. Proceeds 50%or68,382.42 to Heather 218. s18. Proceeds 25% of 68,382.42 to Jaime Garde 219. 519. Payoff Jo Miguel Chae 220. Totnl r ;, id Bv/For Borrower Sl.977.90 520. To1al Reduction Amount Due Seller 300. Cush At Settlement Fronlffo llorrowcr 600. Cash At Sctllcmcnt To/From Seller 301. Gross Amounl due frum borrower (line 120) $275,344.00 60 I. Gross Amounl due 10 seller (line 420) 302. Le'5 amounts paid by/for borrower (line 220) Sl,977.90 602. Less reductions in amt. due seller (lint' 520) 303. Cash From Borrower S27J,J66.10 603. Cash Seller See1oon 5 of the Real Emte Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) requtre.s 1hc Secuon 4(•) or R.ESPA mondates thOJ HUD develop and pre.scnbe 1h11 Slandard follo\ving: • HUD must develop a Special Information Booklet to help persons fonn to be used at the time or loan settlement to provide full disclosure of all charges borrowing money 10 Onance the purchase of residential renl est3te to better impos ed upon the borrower and seller. These are third pany disclosures that arc or understand the nature and costs real CJtate scnterncnt services; designed to provide the borrower with pertinent iofonnation durine the senlemern • Eo.ch lender inust provide the booklet to :i.11 applicants from whom it receives or for process in order to be a better 1hopper. whom It prep;ues o wrinen application to borrow money to finance the pur~ha.sc of The Public Rcponinc Burden for this collection of information is es1imated to residentfal rc:JI est:ite; • Lenders must prep:irc ;md distribute with the Booklet 11 average one hour per response, Including the time for reviewing instructions Good F:i.itk Est iin:ue or the seutement cosu 1hat the borrower is likely to incur in searching existing data sources, g'1thering and m'1intllining the data needed, and cormec1ion with the sculcmcnt. These di:u;:Josurcs arc mandatory. compleung and reviewing the collection of information. This acency may not collect this infonnation, and you are not tcquired lo complete lhis form, unless it displays a currently valid OMB conlrol number. The information rcgueslcd does not lend itself to confidentiality, Previous Editions are Obsolete form HUD-I (J/86) AARB-1:212 Handhook 4305.2 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Michael Nevarez Bar No. 14933400 MRN@MRN4Law.com Envelope ID: 93761785 Filing Code Description: Brief Not Requesting Oral Argument Filing Description: Appellants' Reply Brief To Brief Of Appellee GC Rentals and Management, LLC d/b/a Realty One Group Mendez Burk Status as of 11/1/2024 11:42 AM MST

Associated Case Party: JaimeGardea

Noemi Lopez nlopez@raylaw.com 10/30/2024 3:34:35 PM SENT

Aldo Lopez alopez@raylaw.com 10/30/2024 3:34:35 PM SENT

Monica Lara mlara@raylaw.com 10/30/2024 3:34:35 PM SENT

James A.Martinez martinezja@jmeplaw.com 10/30/2024 3:34:35 PM SENT

Virginia Munoz vmunoz@mgmsg.com 10/30/2024 3:34:35 PM SENT

Michael Downey 24082933 bdow@scotthulse.com 10/30/2024 3:34:35 PM SENT

James Martinez 791192 eservice@jmeplaw.com 10/30/2024 3:34:35 PM SENT

Elena AliciaEsparza eesparza@mgmsg.com 10/30/2024 3:34:35 PM SENT

Denise DominguezMacias Paralegal-2@LawOfficesMRN.com 10/30/2024 3:34:35 PM SENT

Terry Silva tsilva@mgmsg.com 10/30/2024 3:34:35 PM SENT

Michael R.Nevarez MNevarez@LawOfficesMRN.com 10/30/2024 3:34:35 PM SENT

Hala Abdel-Jaber 24133142 abdel-jaber@mgmsg.com 10/30/2024 3:34:35 PM SENT

Mario A.Gonzalez mario@gonzalezlawfirm.com 10/30/2024 3:34:35 PM SENT