There’s No “May Be” About the Latest Heinous Federal Court Scheme to Steal Texans Homes

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE, AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On Thursday, Jan. 23, 2025, Magistrate Judge Bryan issued a collective set of three Orders and three Memorandum and Recommendation(s) (“M&R”) [ECF 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59].

The court also filed three of Plaintiff’s “lost” or “missing” pleadings which were backdated to Nov. 15, 2024 [ECF 51, 52 and 53].

In a nutshell, the orders and M&R’s issued by Magistrate Judge Christina A. Bryan disposed of Joanna Burke’s proceedings with prejudice, recommending Plaintiff be labeled a vexatious litigant with prefiling restrictions.

In her “rush to judgment”, due process along with court procedures, rules, and laws were trampled upon.

However, the main purpose of this motion is to obtain a decision from the Texas Supreme Court as to the underlying dispute about Texas laws and statutory interpretation of the same leading to erroneous Erie guesses in both state and federal courts.

To achieve this end result, pro se Plaintiff believes that there are two methods, either by granting Plaintiff an interlocutory appeal, or by the District Court certifying a question to the Fifth Circuit asking them to initiate the Certified Question(s) to the state’s highest court, whilst this court abates the proceedings herein.

Hence, this motion.

KEY ISSUES

Joanna Burke assumes the court is familiar with the summary of the case as provided throughout these proceedings and therefore it does not require repetition here, as the court can take judicial notice of the docket.

The key issues are;

(1) Whether there is a valid judgment of foreclosure;

(2) Whether the statute of limitations to foreclose is determined as four years or ten years;

(3) Whether an interlocutory appeal is merited to obtain Fifth Circuit approval and certification of question(s) to the Texas Supreme Court, or alternatively;

(4) Whether the District Court would prefer to present a Certified Question to the Fifth Circuit concerning this Motion.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Fifth Circuit’s History of Incorrect Erie Guesses Costs Texas Citizens their Homes

Texas Supreme Court: The Rivera Rush is Regrettable

“Don’t mess with Texas homesteads” has been a clear message to lenders since the very early days of Texas.

The prohibition is so unequivocal that any lien purporting to encumber homestead property is, and for 166 years has continuously been, beyond the reach of creditors for forced sale absent compliance with rigid constitutional requirements.

– Smith v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Ass’n, 825 F. Supp. 2d 859, 861 (S.D. Tex. 2011)).

Fourteen years ago, sitting US District Judge Nelva G. Ramos correctly interpreted a statute of limitations question, and directly confronted case law which could have been applicable:

“Under Texas law, the four–year statute of limitations—on its face—does not apply to Smith’s claim that the lien is void.

Equitable claims to recover property based upon liens that are constitutionally void are not barred by limitations.

Following Rivera would be to grant amnesty to errant lenders as a result of the passage of time, alone.

A noncompliant mortgage lien against a homestead is thus void ab initio.”

She denied JPMC’s motion to dismiss.

However, in the words of the Texas Supreme Court in Wood v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 505 S.W.3d 542, 548, including n.2 (Tex. 2016), both state and federal courts failed to analyze Rivera properly, which resulted in an erroneous Erie guess in Priester v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 708 F.3d 667, 674 (5th Cir.2013) authored by Judge Jerry Smith, and which in turn overruled Smith.

The opinion in Wood lists some of the carnage resulting from erroneous decisions, which irrefutably impacted Texas homeowners and their families negatively, and which most likely caused them to be evicted from their homesteads.

There have been many other erroneous Erie guesses related to Texas homestead laws protected by TEX. CONST. art. XVI, § 50 (a)(6)(A)-(Q).

As detailed in Plaintiff’s operative complaint [ECF 1-4, p.569+] these erroneous decisions undoubtedly include the Fifth Circuit’s opinions in the underlying proceedings in the Deutsche Bank case involving John and Joanna Burke, and where Hon. Stephen Wm. Smith twice challenged the Fifth Circuit, the last one being his 2017 opinion [ECF 1-4, p.570]:-

“Respectfully, this court concludes that the panel decision regarding the validity of the 2011 assignment is clearly erroneous.

It contradicts binding authority from the Texas Supreme Court in violation of Erie, and disregards previous Fifth Circuit decisions, in violation of the circuit’s rule of orderliness…and would work a manifest injustice to the Burkes and other Texas homeowners.”

Despite having the formidable legal representation of Steve Berman from Hagens Berman [ECF 1-4, p.572] during DBNTCO’s second appeal, and in conjunction with the transcribed hearing [ECF 1-4, p.572] before Hon. Stephen Smith and Mark Hopkins, the Fifth Circuit’s reversal of DBNTCO Appeal I was deemed erroneous by Burke’s counsel on remand, a Supreme Court advocate who successfully argued Wood, Constance “Connie” Pfeiffer, then a partner at Beck Redden. [ECF 1-4, p.571]

Nonetheless, a hurried opinion in DBNTCO Appeal II was issued without certifying the controlling question(s) to the Texas Supreme Court.

Indeed, Hagens Berman was astounded that the Fifth Circuit denied oral argument [ECF 1-4, p.572].

Joanna Burke recognizes she is not alone, with the Texas Supreme Court constantly correcting the Fifth Circuit’s erroneous Erie guesses.

In support of this argument, the United States Supreme Court has also reversed an inordinate number of decisions by the Fifth Circuit.

For the most part, Plaintiff focuses on cases and the erroneous Erie guesses which impact[ed] her own home and which involve issues, parties and counsel related to her proceedings.

That said, the sheer devastation of citizens protected legal rights at the hands of judges and justices past and present Erie errors resulted in untold hardship and loss of “protected homesteads”, a manifest injustice to those who were and may be impacted by these fateful orders and final judgments.

The Magistrate Judge’s M&R [58] seeks to maintain the “Rivera Doctrine” of relying upon erroneous legal authorities by failing to independently analyze prior case law, correctly interpret and apply the true and correct meaning to statutes, resulting in the error-laden conclusions and recommendation before the court.

The M&R, along with the related Orders are “clearly erroneous and contrary to law”.

To adopt the M&R would be “a manifest injustice”.

Hence, this motion.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Justice Requires Full Argument and Fairness to All

In reversing this court, Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho recently stated:

“Our adversarial system of justice requires that we give both sides full and fair opportunity to present their strongest possible arguments to the court. It is through that clash of ideas that we ensure that justice is done pursuant to the laws that govern the dispute in question.”

– Ga. Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., 99 F.4th 770, 772 (5th Cir. 2024, pub.).

The Magistrate Judge’s M&R [ECF 58] is Another Rivera: An Erie Error

Plaintiff acknowledges the District Court Judge does not have the jurisdiction to address prior erroneous decisions within the restricted context of this formal objection to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation (M&R).

Nevertheless, the court has the authority to prevent history from repeating itself by ensuring the Texas Supreme Court is involved in resolving the controlling, certifiable questions presented here.

Questions Which Impact the Proposed Certified Question[s] (Excluding Jurisdiction)

1.     Whether November 29, 2018’s Order and purported “valid judgment” issued by Judge Hittner on mandate from the Fifth Circuit in Deutsche Bank Appeal II is invalid and void.

2.     Whether the statute of limitations for foreclosure of a home equity lien is four years, as argued by the Plaintiff, or ten years, as suggested by Magistrate Judge Bryan’s M&R by incorrectly following erroneous Erie guesses and opinions discussed herein.

APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

Certification to Texas Supreme Court (via Fifth Circuit)

Butler v. Collins, No. 23-10072, at *2 (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2024)

(“Certification from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to the Supreme Court of Texas, Pursuant to Article V, § 3-C of the Texas Constitution and Rule 58 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure”);

Am. Pearl Grp. v. Nat’l Payment Sys., No. 23-10804, at *15 (5th Cir. Sep. 10, 2024)

(“”When adjudicating claims for which state law provides the rules of decision, we are bound to apply the law as interpreted by the [relevant] state’s highest court.””).

Statutory Interpretation (Not applying the full statutory text to your analysis)

“The district court considered the first half of this definition – whether Texas Truck brought the tires to the United States—but, without explanation, failed to consider the second half” …

“Where possible, we should interpret a regulation’s language plainly. However, we must consider the regulation in its entirety. The district court’s failure to analyze the entire definition, therefore, was in error.”

Tex. Truck Parts & Tire v. United States, 118 F.4th 687, 691, 697 (5th Cir. 2024).

ARGUMENT

(1) There is No Valid Judgment Ordering Foreclosure

Eleven unintelligible words by Judge David Hittner cannot create a valid judgment and order of foreclosure.

“ORDERS that foreclosure shall occur to effectuate the Fifth Circuit’s judgment” is not a valid judgment, it is void.

See; Witherspoon v. White, 111 F.3d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1997)

(“Merely labeling a judgment as final does not make it so. The order must adjudicate the rights and liabilities of all parties properly before the court.).

(2) The Statute of Limitations is Four Years Which Has Expired

The contrived decade-long, renewable statute of limitations argument presented by Magistrate Judge Bryan mirrors Rivera,

(as discussed in Wood v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 505 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. 2016)).

In short form, the basis of her decision to erroneously rely upon 34.001 [ECF 52-1, p.4-5] is not only a square-peg-round-hole argument, but another example of her willfully snubbing Plaintiff’s legal arguments which nullifies her frivolous claims.

(3) Certification to Texas Supreme Court is Mandatory on State Law Disputes

Plaintiff’s argument is constitutionally protected, and a certified question to the state’s highest court is compulsory

“as we have more fully explained in prior decisions, because of Texas’ strong, historic protection of the homestead, home equity loans are regulated, not by statute as one might suppose, but by the “elaborate, detailed provisions” of Article XVI, Section 50 of the Texas Constitution.”

– former Chief Justice Hecht  in Sims v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., L.L.C., 440 S.W.3d 10, 13 (Tex. 2014)”,

answering an important certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit;

Zepeda v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 960 F.3d 205, 206 (5th Cir. 2020);

and;

Alexander v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 867 F.3d 593, 595 (5th Cir. 2017).

In summary, given the alarming number of cases referenced in M&R [58], and including the District Judge’s own opinion in Strange, which also adopted the Rivera Doctrine of erroneous Erie guesses, certification of the current dispute concerning the statute of limitations period should be mandatory, especially considering the risk to life, liberty and property rights of homeowners in Texas, including the extremely at-risk Plaintiff, an elder, law-abiding, widow, free-thinker and Texas citizen.

See; Sanders v. The Boeing Co., 68 F.4th 977, 979 (5th Cir. 2023)

(“We cannot make a reliable Erie guess on these important matters of state law.”).

2018: A Catastrophic Year of Erie Guesses, Judicial Changes and Void Orders

In a whirlwind and catastrophic year, 2018 witnessed Hon. Stephen Wm. Smith resign shortly after his [second] opinion on remand was released, rejecting the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of the law and reaffirming his post 2015 bench trial decision in favor of John and Joanna Burke’s position that DBNTCO had no legal interest in her homestead.

On Nov. 29, 2018, the deficient [ECF 1-4, p. 414] and void Order [ECF 1-4, p. 515; ECF 52-1, p.2] was entered by US District Judge David Hittner because of the Fifth Circuit’s Erie guess and defiance of centuries old Texas laws and legally binding precedent.

2025: An Opportunity to Correct a Manifest Injustice from Recurring

Fast forward to 2025 and history is repeating itself, with curt Orders by a Magistrate Judge who was appointed at the start of that whirlwind year of 2018 and who would be familiar with these events, along with her M&R’s which defies both common sense and Texas law.

As such, a certified question to the Texas Supreme Court is enforceable as it affects not only Plaintiff’s liberty and property rights specifically protected by the Texas Constitution, but any other affected homeowner.

“The Texas Constitution gives our Court jurisdiction to answer certified questions of state law.

TEX. CONST. art. V, § 3–c (a);

see Richards v. State Farm Lloyds, 597 S.W.3d 492, 497 n.6 (Tex. 2020)

(describing the answer to a certified question as “a constitutionally permissible advisory opinion”).”

Paxton v. Longoria, 646 S.W.3d 532, 537 (Tex. 2022).

Indeed, the Fifth Circuit has recognized this need in recent years, submitting more and more certified questions to the state’s highest court, who provided this opinion to the certified question:

Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Zepeda, 601 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. 2020), and which was cited at *5 in the original April 7, 2022 opinion by the Fifth Circuit in the Lamell case [EXHIBIT 1].

However, the original opinion which would have allowed PNC the relief it sought was hurriedly deleted from the database

(U.S. Bank v. Lamell, No. 21-20326, at *1 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2022)

(“The district court granted summary judgment in favor of USBNA and PHH with respect to their request for a declaration on each of the foregoing grounds, and Mr. Lamell timely appealed. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.”)

and superseded (U.S. Bank v. Lamell, No. 21-20326, at *2 (5th Cir. June 2, 2022)

(“The district court granted summary judgment in the Appellees’ favor, and Mr. Lamell timely appealed. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND for further proceedings.”)

in anticipation of PNC Mortg. v. Howard, 668 S.W.3d 644 (Tex. 2023).

Judge David Hittner’s Six-Year-Old Order and Judgment is Void

Magistrate Judge Bryan double downs that Judge Hittner’s 2018 Order is a “valid judgment”.

The order is not a valid judgment, it is void for the reasons asserted both here and argued by Plaintiff per the court docket.

Magistrate Judge M&R 58 Errs in Claiming PHH’s Foreclosure Efforts Are Timely

“Plaintiff misunderstands PHH’s position.

PHH is not attempting to foreclose under a real property lien;

the lien has already been foreclosed.

PHH is attempting to execute on a judicial foreclosure order.

PHH’s statute of limitations to execute on the foreclosure judgment is governed by Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 34.001.”

Magistrate Judge Bryan cites to the Fifth Circuit’s opinion for this proposition.

However, on inspection, this opinion is contradictory.

Specifically, the 5th Circuit answers two questions, and the second states in Texas, it is well-settled that possession and title are not obtained by the lender until the sale has been conducted:

Couch v. The Bank of N.Y. Mellon, No. 24-10297, at *3-4 (5th Cir. Oct. 11, 2024),

disavowing the claim that “the lien has already been foreclosed”.

This aligns with the standard practice that after a nonjudicial foreclosure auction, a [Substitute] Trustee Deed is generally filed in the real property records, affirming the sale to the lender, or to a third-party.

See; Gapasin v. Sand Canyon Corp., 4:23-cv-02866, at *4 (S.D. Tex. June 5, 2024).

Statute of Limitations and Judge Hittner’s 2018 Order

 Statutory Interpretation: Magistrate Judge Excludes Controlling Text: “may be”

The M&R [58, p.5] “Claim A.” discusses the statute of limitations and evades any mention of Plaintiff’s argument about Judge Hittner’s void Order, which Magistrate Judge Bryan claims is “a valid judgment”.

First, the M&R’s statutory interpretation excludes the all-important text: “is secured by a lien that may be foreclosed upon only by a court order.”

See; Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Poston, Civil Action H-23-2017, at *5 (S.D. Tex. June 25, 2024) (Deutsche Bank “may”).

This is confirmed by another case involving sanctioned Texas attorney Jerry Schutza, who prevailed in his case and confirms that the lien is not foreclosed by the court, the order merely authorizes foreclosure, see:

Chi. Title Ins. Co. v. Cochran Invs., 602 S.W.3d 895,898 (Tex.2020)

(“In December 2010, EMC Mortgage foreclosed its lien on the property [via nonjudicial foreclosure sale, Dec. 7, 2010 see p.14 Chi brief], which Cochran Investments, Inc. subsequently purchased at a foreclosure sale.”;

citing to William R. England, Jr. (09-39736) United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas;

William R. England, Jr. – Adversary Proceeding (11-03295) United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas,

accord;

Morris v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 528 S.W.3d 187,197 (Tex.App. 2017)

(“In Texas, a home-equity lien may be foreclosed upon only by a court order. See Tex. Const. art. XVI, §50(a)(6)(D);

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Robinson, 391 S.W.3d 590,593 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.).”),

accord;

Muir v. U.S. Bank Tr., No. 14-22-00596-CV, at*2 (Tex. App. June 8, 2023)

(“The Deed of Trust provided that the “lien evidenced by [the Deed of Trust] may be foreclosed upon only by a court order.””, at*5:

“The final judgment also includes an order authorizing foreclosure of the Property.

The final judgment further provides that it “serves as an in rem Judgment and Declaration of this Court Authorizing Foreclosure of the subject Texas Home Equity Lien in accordance with TEX. CONST. ART. XVI §50(a)(6)(D).””).

Intervening Foreclosure Order: “A Valid” Judgment released on January 29, 2025

The high-profile U.S. Bank v. Lamell, Civil Action H-19-2402 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2025) proceeding is an example of a valid judgment.

“ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that PHH is the mortgage servicer for U.S. Bank and thus has standing to foreclose pursuant to Texas Property Code Section 51.0025;

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiffs or their successors or assigns, may proceed with foreclosure on the Property as provided in the Deed of Trust and Texas Property Code §51.002.” (describing nonjudicial foreclosure).”.

Magistrate Judge Bryan’s interpretation of the law is completely erroneous, as well as the opinions she relies upon.

Plaintiff addressed this misapplication of Texas laws, and particularly Texas Code § 34.001 with specificity, but her memorandum “skipped” Plaintiff’s arguments, which is a recurring theme in her omnibus of Orders and M&R’s released on Jan. 23, 2025.

Terminally, she fails to address Plaintiff’s arguments and objections to Judge David Hittner’s 2018 “judicial” order of foreclosure, which is not a valid judgment.

It is void as it fails to detail the necessary elements required for such an order, as provided in Lamell by Judge Lake, and with Judge Hittner’s own past Order in Maldonado [ECF 52-1, p.6].

Again, Plaintiff addressed this with specificity, but the M&R refused to acknowledge the arguments with case law or engage in any discussion.

Furthermore, if the foreclosure judgment is governed by Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 34.001, then it was never mentioned in DBNTCO’s complaint.

After exhaustive searches, Plaintiff could not locate court orders “foreclosing the real property lien” for that matter.

Excluding Magistrate Judge Bryan’s Erie guesses in her M&R which PHH also relies upon, Plaintiff could not locate any legal authority to support her argument, because it is absurd.

Plaintiff maintains these cases are incorrectly analyzed and unreliable Erie guesses which should not be allowed to bypass inspection by the Texas Supreme Court, who have never determined the monumental question(s) presented here, which if remain citable law, would be a manifest injustice.

“Statutes of limitations have long been an important feature “in all systems of enlightened jurisprudence.”

Wood v. Carpenter, 101 U.S. 135,139,25 L.Ed. 807 (1879).

They “are vital to the welfare of society and are favored in the law” because they “promote repose by giving security and stability to human affairs.””

– Ferrer v. Almanza, 667 S.W.3d 735,737 (Tex.2023).

DECLARATION

Pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 132.001 and “In lieu of a sworn affidavit, a litigant may submit an unsworn declaration as evidence against summary judgment. See 28 U.S.C. §1746.”, I hereby provide my unsworn declaration. My name is Joanna …and I declare under penalty of perjury that all information herein is true and correct.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons and relief requested here and in the proposed order, the court should GRANT Plaintiff’s requests, and for any and all other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled.

RESPECTFULLY submitted this 3rd day of February, 2025.

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE, AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On Thursday, Jan. 23, 2025, Magistrate Judge Bryan issued a collective set of three Orders and three Memorandum and Recommendation(s) (“M&R”) [ECF 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59].

The court also filed three of Plaintiff’s “lost” or “missing” pleadings which were backdated to Nov. 15, 2024 [ECF 51, 52 and 53].

In a nutshell, the orders and M&R’s issued by Magistrate Judge Christina A. Bryan disposed of Joanna Burke’s proceedings with prejudice, recommending Plaintiff be labeled a vexatious litigant with prefiling restrictions.

In her “rush to judgment”, due process along with court procedures, rules, and laws were trampled upon.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff is simultaneously filing PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CERTIFY QUESTIONS TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT and PROPOSED ORDER.

Should the court GRANT the motion, this request should be moot, however, if the court DENIES the motion, then the Plaintiff respectfully requests an extension of 28 days to legally respond to ECF’s 51-60, considering (with the exception of ECF 60) they were all released together late on Thursday, Jan. 23, 2025, and the constitutional issues raised by the these Orders and M&R’s.

GRANTING THE MOTION TO STAY

Alexander v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 867 F.3d 593, 598 (5th Cir. 2017) (“”In Texas, ‘the homestead has always been protected from forced sale, not merely by statute as in most states, but by the Constitution.’ It was not until 1997 that Texas created exceptions to the constitutional ban on foreclosure for reverse mortgages and other home equity loans. [B]ut, consistent with Texas’s long tradition of protecting the homestead, the amendments clearly prescribed very specific and extensive limitations on those encumbrances.”).

Upon review of the PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CERTIFY QUESTIONS TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, and in conjunction with the Magistrate Judge’s Orders and M&R’s, the US District Court Judge should be able to determine:-

(a) Plaintiff’s argument and Motion to Stay is meritorious;

(b) the questions raised necessitate intervention by the Texas Supreme Court by way of Certified Questions, and

(c) the Motion to Stay should be GRANTED.

DENYING THE MOTION TO STAY

Smith v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Ass’n, 825 F. Supp. 2d 859, 862 (S.D. Tex. 2011) (“If property be homestead in fact and law, lenders must understand that liens cannot be fixed upon it”).

If, however, the STAY is DENIED by this Court, the Plaintiff respectfully requests an extension of 28 days to respond to ECF’s 51-60, which includes three Orders and three M&R’s which impact, life, liberty and property rights.

In support, the Plaintiff requests the US District Judge once more take due consideration of the PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CERTIFY QUESTIONS TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.

That motion presents many of the constitutional violations which have resulted during the Magistrate Judge’s “rush to judgment”.

The effect of releasing the omnibus of orders and M&R’s results in a 14-day window of opportunity for Plaintiff to object and seek relief by way of formal reconsideration.

This is no small task, when considering the fact Magistrate Judge Bryan has refused to even acknowledge or discuss the Plaintiff’s well-researched and detailed motions, responses, replies and supplemental pleadings, especially when it is neither the Magistrate Judge nor the court’s first rodeo in being reversed by the Fifth Circuit for the same issues.

These violations have been categorized by the Fifth Circuit as legal error, an abuse of discretion (power) and due process violations,

for example, when considering

Hager v. Brinker Tex., Inc., 102 F.4th 692 (5th Cir. 2024);

Kennard Law P.C. v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 23-20430 (5th Cir. Aug. 8, 2024);

Ga. Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., 99 F.4th 770, 772 (5th Cir. 2024, pub.).

In summary, the Plaintiff is confident that this court will recognize the Plaintiff’s Motion is meritorious and will GRANT the necessary relief.

DECLARATION

Pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 132.001 and “In lieu of a sworn affidavit, a litigant may submit an unsworn declaration as evidence against summary judgment.

See 28 U.S.C. §1746.”, I hereby provide my unsworn declaration. My name is Joanna …, and I declare under penalty of perjury that all information herein is true and correct.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons and relief requested here and in the proposed order, the court should

GRANT Plaintiff’s STAY while the Certified Question(s) are on appeal,

or in the alternative

GRANT the 28-Day EXTENSION OF TIME,

and for any and all other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled.

RESPECTFULLY submitted this 3rd day of February, 2025.