Motion for Sanctions in BUXTON COMPANY vs FIT BODY BOOT CAMP, INC.

On September 05, 2019 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between and for CONTRACT, OTHER CONTRACT in the District Court of Tarrant County.

Preview
096-310814-19

FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
10/25/2019 3:01 PM
THOMAS A. WILDER
CAUSE NO. 096-310814-19 DISTRICT CLERK

BUXTON COMPANY, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff, §
§
VS. § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
§
FIT BODY BOOT CAMP, INC., §
Defendant. § 96TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT FIT BODY BOOT CAMP, INC.'S ANSWER;
MOTION TO STAY; AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Defendant, Fit Body Boot Camp, Inc. (hereinafter "Fit Body"), files this original answer

and Motion to Stay and Request for Sanctions in response to Plaintiff Buxton Company's

(hereinafter "Buxton") Original Petition.

GENERAL DENIAL

1. Defendant generally denies the allegations in Plaintiffs Original Petition.

VERIFIED PLEAS

2. Another suit involving the same parties and the subject matter is pending in a

California Court. Fit Body filed a lawsuit against Buxton in Case No. 30-2019-01076341-in

the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, on June 12, 2019.

3. Fit Body denies Buxton' allegation that Buxton made a demand in compliance

with Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §38.011 to permit the award of attorney fees to Buxton.

OTHER DEFENSES

4. Fit Body is not liable to Buxton because of failure of consideration. Buxton

failed to provide the services for which Fit Body agreed to compensate Buxton, and despite

attempts by Fit Body to have Buxton honor its obligations under the agreement(s) by providing

the agreed upon consideration, Buxton failed to do so.

096-3108 14-19; Buxton Co. vs. Fit Body Boot Camp, Inc. -Defendant's Original Answer/Motion to Stay/Request
for Sanctions
Page I
COUNTERCLAIM - DECLARATORY RELIEF

5. Fit Body seeks relief under the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgment. The stated

purpose of the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act ("TUDJA" or the "Act") is "to settle

and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal

relations." TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM. CODE§ 37.002(b) (Vernon 1986). The statute expressly

provides that it is "remedial" and "is to be liberally construed." Id. The basic purpose of the

remedy is to provide parties with an early adjudication of rights before they have suffered

irreparable damage. Harkins v. Crews, 907 S.W.2d 51 , 56 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1995, writ

denied). The TUDJA is intended as a speedy and effective remedy for settling disputes before

substantial damages are incurred and was enacted to provide a remedy that is simpler and less

harsh than coercive relief, if it appears that a declaration might terminate the potential

controversy. Town of Annetta South v. Seadrift Development, L.P., 446 S.W.3d 823 (Tex. Civ.

App.- Fort Worth 2014, pet. denied). Fit Body seeks to have this Court declare that Fit Body is

relieved of any legal responsibilities to pay Buxton under the terms of the agreement(s) due to

lack of consideration and/or prior breach by Buxton.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

6. Fit Body seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less and nonmonetary relief. Tex.

R. Civ. P. 47(c)(2).

ATTORNEY FEES

7. Fit Body is entitled to recover its reasonable, equitable, just and necessary

attorney fees pursuant to §37.009 of the TEX.CIV.PRAC.& REM.CODE.

REQUEST FOR STAY AND SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 13

8. In Texas, "it is the custom for the court in which the later action is instituted to

stay proceedings therein until the prior action is determined, or at least for a reasonable time." In

096-3 I 0~ 14-19; Buxton Co. vs. Fit Body Boot Camp, inc. - Defendant's Original Answer/Motion to Stay/Request
for Sanctions
Page 2
re State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 192 S.W.3d 897, 901 (Tex. App. 2006) (citing Mills v.

Howard, 228 S.W.2d 906, 907 (Tex. App. 1950)); see also In re AutoNation, Inc. , 228 S.W.3d

663, 670 (Tex. 2007) ("When a matter is first filed in another state, the general rule is that Texas

courts stay the later-filed proceeding pending adjudication of the first suit."); VE Corp. v. Ernst

& Young, 860 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993) (where identical suits are pending in different states,

"the principle of comity generally requires" deference to the first-filed action). State Farm, l 92

S.W.3d at 901. Fit Body filed suit against Buxton on June 12, 2019 (see a true and correct copy

of the California lawsuit filed by Fit Body, attached to the Affidavit of James A. Jinks, and

marked as Exhibit "A-1 " and incorporated fully by reference herein). Buxton obtained numerous

extensions that it requested from Fit Body of the date Buxton was to file its responsive pleading

to Fit Body's California lawsuit. The extensions were from July 15, 2019 until October 28,

2019. Buxton filed this suit against Fit Body on September 5, 2019.

9. A court must impose sanctions against an attorney or party who signs a pleading,

motion, or other paper if it (1) is groundless and (2) was brought in bad faith or for the purpose

of harassment. Tex. R. Civ. P. 13., and Tex. Civ. Pract. & Remedies Code 10.001. A party can

be sanctioned for its attorney's conduct if the party is implicated in the conduct apart from

having entrusted the legal representation to the attorney. TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v.

Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913,917 (Tex. 1991); Loeffler v. Lytle Indep. Sch. Dist. , 211 S.W.3d 331,

349-50 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2006, pet. denied).

10. A paper is groundless when it has no basis in law or fact and is not warranted by a

good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. Tex. R. Civ. P.

13/Tex. Civ. Pract. & Remedies Code 10.001; see, e.g., Robson v. Gilbreath, 267 S.W.3d 401,

406 (Tex. App.- Austin 2008, pet. denied) (groundless pleading); In re A .CB. , 103 S.W.3d 570,

096-310~ 14-19; Buxton Co. vs. Fit Body Boot Camp, Inc. - Defendant's Original Answer/Motion to Stay,iRequest
far Sanct10ns
Page3
576 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (groundless paper). The standard for reviewing

whether a paper is groundless is objective: did the party and the attorney make a reasonable

inquiry into the legal and factual basis of the claim? The reasonableness of the inquiry is judged

by the facts available and the circumstances present when the party filed the paper. See Tarrant

Cnty. v. Chancey, 942 S.W.2d 151, 155 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1997, no writ).

11. Buxton filed this lawsuit nearly three months after having been served with Fit

Body's lawsuit in California. Buxton's lawsuit was brought in bad faith as there is no basis for

Buxton to have filed suit in Texas during the pendency of the California litigation. Fit Body has

attached the true and correct copy of the Affidavit of James A. Jinks, marked as Exhibit "A" and

fully referenced herein, in support of Fit Body's request for sanctions.

PRAYER
12. For these reasons, Defendant Fit Body Boot Camp, Inc., asks the Court to impose

a stay on this cause while the previously filed California case is litigated, declare that Defendant

Fit Body Boot Camp, Inc., is not obligated to any further payments under the agreement(s),

assess attorney fees and costs as sanctions against Plaintiff Buxton Company or filing this

lawsuit, and award all other relief to which Defendant Fit Body Boot Camp, Inc., is entitled.

HEARING REQUESTED

13. Defendant Fit Body Boot Camp, Inc., requests a hearing on its Motion to Stay and

Request for Sanctions.

096-310~ 14-19; Buxton Co. vs. Fit Body Boot Camp, inc. - Defendant's Original Answer/Motion to Stav/Request
for Sanctions -'
Page 4
Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICE OF JAMES A. JINKS
313 Harwood Rd.
Suite 100
Bedford, TX 7 6021
Tel. 817-786-3444
Fax 817-281-0737
Isl James A. Jinks
State Bar No. 24026452
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of Defendant Fit Body Boot Camp, Inc.,'s

Original Answer/Motion to Stay/Request for Sanctions has been served on counsel of record for

Plaintiff Buxton Company:

Joseph D. Zopolsky
James C. Erdle, Jr.
Bradford K. Burdette
Glast, Phillips & Murray, P.C.
14801 Quorum Drive, Sutie 500
Dallas, Texas 75254-1449

via Eservice to jzopolsky@gpm-law.com; jerdle@gpm-law.com:p and bburdette(a),gpm-1aw.com

on the 25 th day of October, 2019.

Isl James A. Jinks

096-310~14-19; Buxton Co. vs. Fit Body Boot Camp, Inc. - Defendant's Original Answer/Motion to Stay/Request
for Sanct10ns
Pages
CAUSE NO. 096-310814-19

BUXTON COMPANY, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff, §
§
vs. § TARRANTCOUNTY,TEXAS
§
FIT BODY BOOT CAMP, INC., §
Defendant. § 96TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES A. JINKS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY AND
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Before me, the undersigned notary, on this day personally appeared James A. Jinks, the

affiant, a person whose identity is known to me. After I administered an oath to affiant, affiant

testified:

l. "My name is James A. Jinks. I am over 18 years of age, of sound mind, and capable of
making this affidavit. The facts stated in this affidavit are within my personal knowledge and are
true and correct.

2. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Texas since September 5, 2000. I
was first licensed to practice law in California on June 8, 1992. I have an extensive background
in civil litigation, having tried numerous cases in this County over the last nineteen years.

3. I was retained by Defendant Fit Body Boot Camp, Inc., to defend them in the lawsuit
filed by Buxton Company. I have attached a true and correct copy of the lawsuit filed by Fit
Body Boot Camp, Inc., on June 12, 2019 against Buxton Company, d/b/a Buxton Analytics of
California, a Texas Corporation; and Does 1 through 20, Inclusive, and marked as Exhibit "A-1"
and incorporated by referenced herein. Plaintiff Buxton Company was served with the
California lawsuit on or about June 14, 2019, eighty-five (85) days before it filed the instant
lawsuit.

4. It was necessary for Fit Body Boot Camp, Inc., (hereinafter "Fit Body") to retain a
Texas attorney to represent its interests in this matter as Plaintiff filed the instant case after
having been sued by Fit Body in Superior Court in Orange County, California.

5. Plaintiffs lawsuit is in violation of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 13 and Chapter 10
of Texas Civil Practice & Remedies as the parties are engaged in California litigation initiated by
Defendant Fit Body against Plaintiff Buxton Company filed on June 12, 2019 (see a true and
correct copy of the California Complaint, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A-1" and
incorporated fully by reference). Buxton Company requested, and Fit Body granted, numerous
extensions for Buxton Company to answer the California action. During the time of those
extensions, Buxton Company filed this case in Texas on September 5, 2019. Buxton's filing of
this lawsuit was in bad faith. Fit Body is entitled to be awarded its attorney fees and costs as

096~310814-19; Buxton Co. vs. Fit Body Boot Camp, Inc. -Affidavit of James A. Jinks in Support of Defendant's
Motion to Stay/Request for Sanctions - ---EXRfair- - Paoe l
;::,

A
sanctions for having to respond to Buxton's lawsuit.

6. In Texas, "it is the custom for the court in which the later action is instituted to stay
proceedings therein until the prior action is determined, or at least for a reasonable time." In re
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 192 S.W.3d 897, 901 (Tex. App. 2006) (citing Mills v. Howard,
228 S.W.2d 906, 907 (Tex. App. 1950)); see also In re AutoNation, Inc. , 228 S.W.3d 663, 670
(Tex. 2007) ("When a matter is first filed in another state, the general rule is that Texas courts
stay the later-filed proceeding pending adjudication of the first suit."); VE Corp. v. Ernst &
Young, 860 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993) (where identical suits are pending in different states, "the
principle of comity generally requires" deference to the first-filed action). State Farm, 192
S.W.3d at 901.

7. Fit Body Boot Camp, Inc., never received a thirty (30) day demand for payment that
would support its claims for attorney fees pursuant to Chapter 30 of Tex. Civ. Pract. & Rem.
Code. Buxton retained California counsel, the law fim1 of Wolfe & Wyman, L.L.P., who
requested on Buxton's behalf, numerous extensions to file Buxton's responsive pleading, a
demurrer, to Fit Body's lawsuit in California, from July 15, 2019 until October 28, 2019. At the
time of this filing, Buxton has not filed its demurrer in the California litigation.

8. Fit Body's retention of my services on this case preclude me from accepting other
employment. Because of the uniqueness of this case, this case would be undesirable for most
attorneys, thereby making Fit Body's retention of an attorney difficult.

9. The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved in this case required me to spend
approximately six (6.5) hours to review Buxton's lawsuit, perform necessary legal research,
prepare Fit Body's Answer, Motion for Stay, Request for Sanctions, to prepare this affidavit, and
to appear at the hearing.

10. Fit Body Boot Camp, Inc., agreed to compensate me for my work based on hourly rate
of $350.00 per hour plus expended costs.

11. Based on the fee agreement, Fit Body has incurred six and one-half (6.5) hours in work
in this matter for fees of $2,275.00, plus $3.34 in filing fee, travel and parking of $24.71, for a
total amount of attorney fees and costs of $2,303.05. The Court may take judicial notice that the
amount of hours incurred, and the charge per hour, in context of this matter are reasonable and
necessary.

12. The fees charged in this case are customarily charged in this area for the same or similar
services for an attorney with my experience, reputation, and ability, considering type of
controversy, the time limitations imposed, and the results obtained.

Further Affiant sayeth not. "

096-310814-19; Buxton Co. vs. Fit Body Boot Camp, Inc. - Affidavit of James A. Jinks in Support of Defendant's
Motion to Stay/ Request for Sanctions Page 2
/ ~fiant --=Jarfibs A. Jinks
~ "-_.,I
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me 01~~ ~: T~ 7Y--,:f October, 2019.

~\ ~ (,,;
(seal) N'c?!a~~t, State of Texas

·r2'f'""'"'
Ccx
RYAN COX Notar/s Printed Name
Notary ID #132020463
My Commission Expires
May 21, 2023 My commission Expires: Ne:..y 2J, ..z..c 2..s

096~310814-19; Bux/011 Co. Fil Body Boo/ Camp,
JJS. J11c. - Affidavit ofJames A. Jjnks in Support ofDefendant's
Motion to Stay/Request for Sanctions
Page 3
Benjamin B. Berger, Bar No. 220394
Justin Z. Wolf, Bar No. pending ELECTRONICA.LLY FILED
2 BERG ER ♦ HARRJSON, Al'C Superior Cowt of Ca.lifornia..
County of Orange
114 Pacifica, Suite 470
3 Irvine, CA 92618 06/12 / 2019 a.t 11 :11:5 7 A.M
(949) 548-1700 I Fax: (949) 548-1001 Clerk of the Su p erior Cot11t
4 bb@bergerharrison.com I jw@bergerharrison.com By Brook lsr·HI.. Dep ut ;t Cl erk

5 Attorneys for Plaintiff FIT BODY BOOT CAMP, INC.

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
BI
9 COUNTY OF ORANGE, K K ~ JUSTICE CENTER
North
10

11 FIT BODY BOOT CAMP, INC., a CASE NO. 30 - 2019 - 0 1 076341-CU - BC-NJC
California corporation,
12 Assigned For All Purposes To:
Plaintiff, Judge:Judge Craig Griffin
13
Dept.:
vs.
14
BUXTON COMPANY, dba BUXTON COMPLAINT FOR:
15 ANALYTICS OF CALIFORNIA, a Texas 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, 2. DECLARATORY RELIEF
16 Inclusive,

17 Defendants.
18

19 Plaintiff FIT BODY BOOT CAMP, INC. alleges as follows:

20 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

21 1. Plaintiff FIT BODY BOOT CAMP, INC. ("FIT BODY") is a California

22 corporation doing business at all relevant times in California.

23 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant BUXTON COMPAN Y

24 (" BUXTON"), is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Texas and doing

25 business in the state of California.

26 3. BUXTON sells data and analytics to its customers, which previously included

27 FIT BODY.

28 Ill
BERGER -I-
•
I
HAR RISO ,~
EXHIBIT- COMPLAINT

A-I
4. The true names and capacities, whether individual, governmental, corporate or

2 otherwise, of defendants DOES l through 20, are presently unknown to plaintiff, who

3 therefore sues said defendants, and each of them, by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is

4 informed and believes and based thereon alleges that each defendant named as DOE is

5 responsible in some manner for the damages to plaintiff as herein alleged, or has responsibility

6 for the relief sought herein, and plaintiff will seek leave of this court to amend this complaint

7 to show their true names, identities, and capacities when the same have been ascertained.

8 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each

9 defendant, including DOES 1 to 20, at all times mentioned herein, was the agent and servant

10 of each other defendant and at all times pertinent hereto was acting within the course and

11 scope of said employment and agency, with the knowledge and consent of each other.

12 6. In March 2017, FIT BODY and BUXTON entered into a contract (the

13 "Agreement"). The Agreement required BUXTON to provide access to its data and its

14 system. It also required BUXTON to provide support (via (1) a project manager, (2) a

15 predictive analyst and (3) a data analyst) and other services. BUXTON was to assign an

16 account management team to FIT BODY. FIT BODY was required to pay a fee.

17 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - BREACH OF CONTRACT

18 (Against BUXTON and DOES l through 20)

19 7. All previous paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein.

20 8. FIT BODY performed as required under the Agreement unless and until

21 performance by FIT BODY was excused.

22 9. Within the past four years, BUXTON breached the Agreement, including but

23 not limited to, by failing to staff the FIT BODY account as promised, by failing to provide the

24 support and other services as promised, by failing to respond to requests in a timely fashion,

25 and failing to maintain or update data as required by the Agreement.

26 10. The breaches by BUXTON resulted in harm to FIT BODY.

27 11. FIT BODY has suffered damages in an amount according to proof, but in an

28 amount of at least $25,000.
BERGER
♦
-2-
H ARRISON
COMPLAINT
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - DECLARATORY RELIEF

2 (Against BUXTON and DOES 1 through 20)

3 12. All previous paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein.

4 13. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and

5 Defendant concerning their respective rights and duties. More specifically, Plaintiff contends

6 it has not received the services promised under the agreement from BUXTON, whereas

7 Defendant disputes these contentions and contends that it is owed the full amount of unpaid

8 fees, even if it is relieved of the obligation to perform under the Agreement or to support the

9 account in any way.

10 14. Plaintiff desires a judicial determination of the patt ies' rights and duties under

11 the Agreement.

12 15. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under the

13 circumstances in order that plaintiff may ascertain the rights and duties as descried above.

14 PRAYER

15 Plaintiff seeks judgment against defendants as follows:

16 1. For actual damages according to proof, but no less than $25,000;

17 2. For prejudgment interest;

18 3. For costs of suit;

19 4. For attorney's fees; and

20 5. For such other relief as the court may deem just and proper.

22 Dated: June 12, 2018 BERGER ♦ H ARRTSO N, APC

24 By ~ _.., ~
Benj amin Berger,
ti/0c·
25 Justin Z. Wolf: Attorney for Plaintiff FIT
BODY BOOT CAMP, INC.
26

28
BERGER
♦
-3-
HAR RISON
COMPLAINT
CM-010
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY ?.Name. State Bar number. and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
8. Berger, Bar No. 2
>-- Ben.iamin 0394
Justin Z. Wolf, Bar No. pending
114 Pacifica, Suite 470, Ste. 470
Irvine, CA 9261 8 ELECTRONICALLY FILED
f,9491548-[ 700
TELEPHONE NO. FAX NO.(949) 548-1001 Sl1perio rColll1 of California.,
b(a}
ATTORNEY FOR /Name) · ergerharrison.com / iw(a),bereerharrison.com County of Orange
I
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OFORANGE 06 / 12 / 2019 at 11 :11 :5 7 AM
STREET ADDRESS:
N ort h Justice Cente r Clerk of the Superior Cou1t
MAILING AOOR: SS:
1275 North Ber ke leyAven ue ~f Brook lsni.el, Deputy- Cluk
CITY AND ZIP CODE:
Fu llerton, CA92832
6HANCHNA,.\1E

CASE NAME:
Fit Body Boot Camp v Buxton
CASE NUMBER:
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation
[ZJ Unlimited D Limited 30 - 2019-01076341-CU-BC-NJC
(Amount (Amount D Counter D Joinder
JUDGE Jiidge Craig Griffin
demanded
exceeds $25,000)
demanded is
$25,000 or less)
Filed w ith first appearance by defe ndant
- (Cal. Rules of Court. rule 3.402) DEPT:

Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2).
l
1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:
Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation
D Auto (22) W (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.4031
Breach of contracl/warranty (06)
D Uninsured motorist (46) D Rule 3.740 collections (09) D AntitrusVTrade regulation (03)
Other PI/PDIWD (Personal Injury/Property D Other collections (09) D Construction defect (10)
Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort D Insurance coverage (18) D Mass tort (40)
D Asbestos (04) D Other contract (37) D Securities litigation (28)
D Product liability (24) Real Property D Environmental/Toxic tort (30)
D Medical malpractice (45) D Eminent domain/Inverse D Insurance coverage claims arising from the
D other Pl/PD/WO (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case
Non-PI/PD/WD (Other) Tort D Wrongful eviction (33) types (41)

D D Other real property (26)
Business tort/unfair business practice (07) Enforcement of Judgment
D Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer D Enforcement of judgment (20)
D Defamation (13) D Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
D Fraud (16) D Residential (32) D RIC0(27)
D Intellectual property (19) D Drugs (38) D Other complaint (not specified above/ (42)
D Professional negligence (25) Judicial Roview Miscellaneous Civil Petition
D other non-Pl/PD/WO tort (35) D Asset forieiture (05) D Partnership and corporate governance (21 )
Employment D D
Petition re: arbitration award (1 1)
other petition (not specified above) (43)
D Wrongful termination (36) D Writ of mandate (02)
D Other employment (15) D Other iudicial review (39)
2. This case LJ is LiJ is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, ma rk the
factors requiring exceptional judicia l management:
a.D Large number of separately represented parties d.D Large number of witnesses
b.D D
Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel
e. Coordination with re lated actions pending in one or more courts
issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries. or in a federal court
c.D Substantial amount of documentary evidence f.D Substantial postjudgme nt judicial supervision

3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a.[2] monetaryb. 0 c.D
non monetary; declaratory or injunctive relief punitive
4. Number of causes of action (specify):
5 Th is case D is [ZJ is not a class action suit.
6. use
If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. ( Yma
i ~ uform CM-0 15.)
Date: June I 2, 20 I 9 .1. \ "
• ,------
Justin Z. Wo lf: Esq.
i'f YPE OR PRINT NAME)
· V\}J
L-- r:..Y-'--e::(S"'IG,:'TY
ivv
Ni:\ T""V"'R'=e""
cr
=. -"'PAR
=:,.,-O
~R:-A:-::T"'TO
"'R"'N""EY
ccF
:-:0::Rc:Pc:-AR
"'T::-:
Y,-
) - -- -

NOTICE
• Plaintiff must file this cover she et with the first paper filed in the action
roceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed
under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220 .) Failure to fi le may result
in sanctions.
• File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local co urt rule .
• If this case is comple x under rule 3.400 et seq . of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all
other parties to the action or proceeding.
_:~nle ss this is a collections c a s ~~-~ule 3 .740 or a complex case , this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes on ?'.,.
0 101
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Cal Rules or Court, rules 2 30, 3 220. 3 400-3 403, 3.740;
Judicial Council of C alifornia
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal Standards of Judicial Administra!ioo, std 3 10
CM-0 10(Rev July 1. 2007] wwwcourtinfo.ca.gov
SUM-100
SUMMONS FOR COURT USE DNL Y
(SDLO PARA USO OE UI COR TE)
(CITAC/ON JUDICIAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
(AV/SO AL DEMANDADO): ELE CTRONI O\LLY FI LED
Su pHi or Court of Califor ni a...
BUXTON COMPANY, dba BUXTON ANALYTICS OF Co unt y' of Oran ge
CALIFORNIA, a Texas Corporation ; and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive
06 / 1 2{201 9 at 11 :11 :5 7 .AM
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: Clerk of t heSu perio r LOli lt
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): El:,1 Bro ok lsrni, Dep uty
Clerk
FIT BODY BOOT CAMP, INC., a California corporation

NOTICE! You have been sued . The court may decide against you without your being heard unle ss you respond within 30 days. Read the information
below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after tnis summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy
served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your
case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response . You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts
Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask
the court clerk for a fee w aiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property
may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney
referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofi t legal services program. You can locate
tnese nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifomia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center
(www.courtinfo.ca gov/selfhelp), o r by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and
costs on any settlement or arbitration award of$10,000 or more in a civil case . The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
/ AV/SOI Lohan demandadoSi no responde den fro de 30 dias, la carte puede decidir en su con tra sin escuchar su versi6n Lea la informaci6n a
confinuaci6n
Tiene 30 DiAS DE CA LENDAR/0 despues de que le entreguen es/a citaci6n y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta
corte y hacer que se entregue una copia

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

October 25, 2019

Case Filing Date

September 05, 2019

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: BUXTON COMPANY vs FIT BODY BOOT CAMP, INC.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties