Preview
5/9/2023 1:19 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 75456352
2023-28719 / Court: 234 By: Gerardo Perez
Filed: 5/9/2023 1:19 PM
CAUSE NO.
1 CARE PREMIER SERVICES, LLC IN THE DISTRICT
COURT
Plaintiff
VS OF HARRIS COUNTY
BRIDGES TO PERMANENCY, LLC,
KERRY BOYKINS, JARON SMITH
HALEY, And LYNDA CAROUTHERS
FORD
Defendants ____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION & REQUEST FOR INJUNCTION
Plaintiff, 1 Care Premier Services, LLC, files this original petition against Defendants Bridges
to Permanency, LLC, Kerry Boykins, Jaron Smith Hailey, and Lynda Ford and alleges as follows:
A. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
1 Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level 2 of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure
190.3 and affirmatively pleads that this suit is not governed by the expedited-actions
process in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169 because Plaintiff requests injunction relief,
seeks monetary relief over $100,000
B. RELIEF
2. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief over $200,000 but not more than $1,000,000.
C. PARTIES
3 Plaintiff, 1 Care Premier Services, LLC (“1 Care”) is a Texas Limited Liability
Corporation doing business in Harris County, Texas.
Defendant, Bridges to Permanency, LLC (“Bridges”) is a Texas Limited Liability
Corporation who may be served on its Registered Agent Kerry Boykins at 7023 Belle
Meadow Lane, Richmond, Texas 77469.
5 Defendant, Kerry Boykins (“Boykins”) is an individual resident of the State of Texas
who can be served at 7223 Belle Meadow Lane, Richmond, Texas 77469 or wherever he
can be found.
Defendant, Jaron Smith Hailey (“Hailey”) is an individual resident of the State of Texas
who can be served at 9888 Bissonnet #245, Houston, Texas 77036 or wherever he can be
found.
Defendant, Lynda Caruthers Ford (“Ford”) is an individual resident of the State of
Texas who can be served at 5623 Amelia Plantation Dr., Katy, Texas 77469 or wherever
she may be found.
D. FACTS
On or about March 15, 2023, at Houston, Harris County, Texas, Co-Defendant Ford
left the employment of Plaintiff taking with her a computer hard drive of proprietary
information about Plaintiff and its clients. Co-Defendant Ford joined Co-Defendant
Bridges to Permanency, LLC and along with its President Co-Defendant Kerry Boykins
and Co-Defendant employee Jaron Smith Hailey instituted a campaign of interfering with
Plaintiff’s client relationships, seeking to steal Plaintiff’s clients, and using a campaign of
defamation, bad-mouthing Plaintiff to Plaintiff’s clients to take the clients from Plaintiff.
At the time this suit is being filed at t=least three of Plaintiffs’ clients have left Plaintiff
because of the false information provided by Defendants about the Plaintiff’s alleged legal
status.
10 Co-Defendant Ford had the false information and along with her Co-Defendants
interfered by defaming Plaintiff and stealing proprietary information and clients from
Plaintiff.
11 In addition, Ford with the consent or approval engaged a campaign by falsely stating
that Plaintiff was closing and also that they were being investigated by the State of Texas
when Ford herself sent in a complaint targeting the Plaintiff and its President Nicole Mays
12 As part of the campaign against Plaintiff, Ford and her Co-Defendants improperly had
Chiarra Dellhouse submit unauthorized emails to client foster parents that put Plaintiff out
of compliance in the State of Texas. Ford also instructed clients not to contact Nicole Mays
and propagated inaccurate office house all to be used to enable Defendants to steal
Plaintiff’s clients.
13 Ford and her Co-Defendants stole confidential documents belonging to Plaintiff about
clients by releasing them to Defendant Bridges. Specifically, during Ford’s employment
with Plaintiff, she was assigned two laptop computers which had access to personal and
confidential information regarding Plaintiff and its clients. As Ford was in process of
joining Bridges she deleted and or made unrecoverable proprietary business information
Ford also converted one of the laptops to her own personal use and transferred it to her
friend Hopton Bell, who was given access to confidential client information which put
Plaintiff at risk for HIPPA violations. In addition, Ford with the approval of her Co-
Defendants removed company proprietary documents and deleted key company documents
to set Plaintiff up to be sanctioned by the State of Texas.
COUNT 1 - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING CONTRACT
14 Plaintiff had a valid agreement with clients Jeffrey McGlothen, Patrick Bernared, and
Pamela Edwards.
15 Co-Defendant Lynda Ford had the information about the Plaintiff’s clients and along
with her Co-Defendants interfered in the relationships of the clients with Plaintiff.
16 The Defendants willfully and intentionally interfered with Plaintiff’s contracts by
defaming Plaintiff and then stealing the clients from Plaintiff.
17 Defendant’s interference proximately caused injury to Plaintiff, which resulted in the
following actual damage or loss. The interference proximately caused injury of loss of
business, loss of reputation in the sum of at least $750,000.
18. Exemplary Damages. Plaintiff’s injury resulted from Defendants’ malice or actual fraud,
which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code
section 41.0003(a).
COUNT 2 —- TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE RELATIONS
19 Paragraphs 1 — 18 are hereby incorporated by reference herein.
20. In addition to other counts, Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s prospective business
relationship with foster parent clients. Plaintiff was prepared to enter into a contract with
Deborah Watson.
21 Plaintiff had an existing relationship with Deborah Watson.
22. Ford knew of Plaintiff’s business relationship with and through Ford so did the other
Defendants and intentionally interfered with these relations by defaming Plaintiff and
sabotaging its business.
23. Defendants’ actions were independently tortious, regardless of the effect those actions
had on Plaintiff’s business relationship with foster parents
24, Defendant’s interference proximately caused injury to Plaintiff, which resulted in the
following damages: At least $750,000 in damages. Plaintiff seeks damages within the
jurisdictional limits of this Court
25. Exemplary Damages Plaintiff’s injuries resulted from Defendant’s gross negligence,
malice, or actual fraud, which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas Civil
Practice & Remedies Code section 41.0003(a).
COUNT 3 - DEFAMATION
26 Paragraphs 1-18, 19-25 are hereby incorporated by reference.
27 Defendant published a statement by oral communication asserting as fact that Plaintiff
was closing, that Plaintiff had State of Texas regulatory issues and Plaintiff could not
service its client’s foster parent needs.
28 Defendant’s statement involved a matter of private concern: how Plaintiff operated its
business and its compliance with the State of Texas Regulations.
29 Defendant’s statement referred to Plaintiff directly
30. Defendants’ statement was libel per se as defined by Texas Civil Practice & Remedies
Code section 73.001. defendants’ statements injured Plaintiff’s reputation and exposed
Plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, or financial injury by misrepresenting Plaintiff and its
business and impeached Plaintiffs honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation in the same
manner.
2
3 1 Defendant’s oral statements were defamatory per se under common law. Defendant’s
statements injured Plaintiff in Plaintiffs profession by trashing Plaintiff’s business and
services.
2
3 2. Defendant’s statements were false because Plaintiff is a quality adoption agency.
2
3 3 Defendants are strictly liable to Plaintiff for the defamation.
24
3. Defendant’s false statements directly and proximately caused injury to Plaintiff which
resulted in the following general damages as detailed herein.
35 Plaintiff seeks damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.
36 EXEMPLARY DAMAGES Plaintiff’s injury resulted from Defendant’s malice, which
entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas civil Practice & Remedies Code
section 41.00039(a)(2)
REQUEST FOR CORRECTION, CLARIFICATION, OR RETRACTION
37 Paragraphs 1-18, 19-24, 26-36 are incorporated by reference herein.
38 On May 4, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant Bridges with a request to retract the false
and defamatory statements. The request was served on Defendant within 90 days after
Plaintiff had knowledge of its publication. The request is attached as Exhibit A.
39 Defendant’s false and defamatory statement included the following the Plaintiff is
closing and Plaintiff is in trouble with the State of Texas Regulators
40 Defendant’s statement was defamatory as detailed herein.
COUNT 4- INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
4l Paragraphs 1-18, 19-24, 26-34, 38-40 are incorporated by reference herein.
42 Plaintiff seeks a temporary and permanent injunction ordering Defendants to cease and
desist from defaming Plaintiff.
43 It is probable that Plaintiff will recover from Defendants after a trial on the merits
because the Defendants have engaged in an ongoing effort to defame Plaintiff and to steal
clients.
44 If Plaintiff’s application is not granted, harm is imminent because the Defendants will
destroy Plaintiff as an ongoing business entity
45 The harm that will result if the temporary injunction is not issued is irreparable because
the business will be depleted and strangled.
46 Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law because present and certainly future damages
are incalculable and Defendants are not sufficiently solvent to pay a judgment for
destroying Plaintiff’s business
REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
47 Plaintiff asks the Court to set up its application for temporary injunction for hearing
and, after the hearing, issue a temporary injunction against Defendants.
REQUEST FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
48 Plaintiff asks the Court to set its request for a permanent injunction for a full trial on
the merits and, after the trial, issue a permanent injunction against Defendants.
PRAYER
49 For these reasons, Plaintiff asks that the Court issue citation to the Defendants to appear
and answer, and that Plaintiff be awarded a judgment against Defendants for the following:
Temporary injunction
Permanent injunction
Actual damages
Exemplary damages
Prejudgment and post-judgment interest
Court costs
All other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gary M. Polland
Gary M. Polland
SBN 16095800
1533 W. Alabama St.
Houston, Texas 77006
Telephone: (713) 621-6335
Facsimile: (713) 622-6334
Email: pollandlaw@yahoo.com
Preview
5/9/2023 1:19 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 75456352 2023-28719 / Court: 234 By: Gerardo Perez Filed: 5/9/2023 1:19 PM CAUSE NO. 1 CARE PREMIER SERVICES, LLC IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff VS OF HARRIS COUNTY BRIDGES TO PERMANENCY, LLC, KERRY BOYKINS, JARON SMITH HALEY, And LYNDA CAROUTHERS FORD Defendants ____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION & REQUEST FOR INJUNCTION Plaintiff, 1 Care Premier Services, LLC, files this original petition against Defendants Bridges to Permanency, LLC, Kerry Boykins, Jaron Smith Hailey, and Lynda Ford and alleges as follows: A. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 1 Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level 2 of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 190.3 and affirmatively pleads that this suit is not governed by the expedited-actions process in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169 because Plaintiff requests injunction relief, seeks monetary relief over $100,000 B. RELIEF 2. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief over $200,000 but not more than $1,000,000. C. PARTIES 3 Plaintiff, 1 Care Premier Services, LLC (“1 Care”) is a Texas Limited Liability Corporation doing business in Harris County, Texas. Defendant, Bridges to Permanency, LLC (“Bridges”) is a Texas Limited Liability Corporation who may be served on its Registered Agent Kerry Boykins at 7023 Belle Meadow Lane, Richmond, Texas 77469. 5 Defendant, Kerry Boykins (“Boykins”) is an individual resident of the State of Texas who can be served at 7223 Belle Meadow Lane, Richmond, Texas 77469 or wherever he can be found. Defendant, Jaron Smith Hailey (“Hailey”) is an individual resident of the State of Texas who can be served at 9888 Bissonnet #245, Houston, Texas 77036 or wherever he can be found. Defendant, Lynda Caruthers Ford (“Ford”) is an individual resident of the State of Texas who can be served at 5623 Amelia Plantation Dr., Katy, Texas 77469 or wherever she may be found. D. FACTS On or about March 15, 2023, at Houston, Harris County, Texas, Co-Defendant Ford left the employment of Plaintiff taking with her a computer hard drive of proprietary information about Plaintiff and its clients. Co-Defendant Ford joined Co-Defendant Bridges to Permanency, LLC and along with its President Co-Defendant Kerry Boykins and Co-Defendant employee Jaron Smith Hailey instituted a campaign of interfering with Plaintiff’s client relationships, seeking to steal Plaintiff’s clients, and using a campaign of defamation, bad-mouthing Plaintiff to Plaintiff’s clients to take the clients from Plaintiff. At the time this suit is being filed at t=least three of Plaintiffs’ clients have left Plaintiff because of the false information provided by Defendants about the Plaintiff’s alleged legal status. 10 Co-Defendant Ford had the false information and along with her Co-Defendants interfered by defaming Plaintiff and stealing proprietary information and clients from Plaintiff. 11 In addition, Ford with the consent or approval engaged a campaign by falsely stating that Plaintiff was closing and also that they were being investigated by the State of Texas when Ford herself sent in a complaint targeting the Plaintiff and its President Nicole Mays 12 As part of the campaign against Plaintiff, Ford and her Co-Defendants improperly had Chiarra Dellhouse submit unauthorized emails to client foster parents that put Plaintiff out of compliance in the State of Texas. Ford also instructed clients not to contact Nicole Mays and propagated inaccurate office house all to be used to enable Defendants to steal Plaintiff’s clients. 13 Ford and her Co-Defendants stole confidential documents belonging to Plaintiff about clients by releasing them to Defendant Bridges. Specifically, during Ford’s employment with Plaintiff, she was assigned two laptop computers which had access to personal and confidential information regarding Plaintiff and its clients. As Ford was in process of joining Bridges she deleted and or made unrecoverable proprietary business information Ford also converted one of the laptops to her own personal use and transferred it to her friend Hopton Bell, who was given access to confidential client information which put Plaintiff at risk for HIPPA violations. In addition, Ford with the approval of her Co- Defendants removed company proprietary documents and deleted key company documents to set Plaintiff up to be sanctioned by the State of Texas. COUNT 1 - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING CONTRACT 14 Plaintiff had a valid agreement with clients Jeffrey McGlothen, Patrick Bernared, and Pamela Edwards. 15 Co-Defendant Lynda Ford had the information about the Plaintiff’s clients and along with her Co-Defendants interfered in the relationships of the clients with Plaintiff. 16 The Defendants willfully and intentionally interfered with Plaintiff’s contracts by defaming Plaintiff and then stealing the clients from Plaintiff. 17 Defendant’s interference proximately caused injury to Plaintiff, which resulted in the following actual damage or loss. The interference proximately caused injury of loss of business, loss of reputation in the sum of at least $750,000. 18. Exemplary Damages. Plaintiff’s injury resulted from Defendants’ malice or actual fraud, which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 41.0003(a). COUNT 2 —- TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE RELATIONS 19 Paragraphs 1 — 18 are hereby incorporated by reference herein. 20. In addition to other counts, Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s prospective business relationship with foster parent clients. Plaintiff was prepared to enter into a contract with Deborah Watson. 21 Plaintiff had an existing relationship with Deborah Watson. 22. Ford knew of Plaintiff’s business relationship with and through Ford so did the other Defendants and intentionally interfered with these relations by defaming Plaintiff and sabotaging its business. 23. Defendants’ actions were independently tortious, regardless of the effect those actions had on Plaintiff’s business relationship with foster parents 24, Defendant’s interference proximately caused injury to Plaintiff, which resulted in the following damages: At least $750,000 in damages. Plaintiff seeks damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court 25. Exemplary Damages Plaintiff’s injuries resulted from Defendant’s gross negligence, malice, or actual fraud, which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 41.0003(a). COUNT 3 - DEFAMATION 26 Paragraphs 1-18, 19-25 are hereby incorporated by reference. 27 Defendant published a statement by oral communication asserting as fact that Plaintiff was closing, that Plaintiff had State of Texas regulatory issues and Plaintiff could not service its client’s foster parent needs. 28 Defendant’s statement involved a matter of private concern: how Plaintiff operated its business and its compliance with the State of Texas Regulations. 29 Defendant’s statement referred to Plaintiff directly 30. Defendants’ statement was libel per se as defined by Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 73.001. defendants’ statements injured Plaintiff’s reputation and exposed Plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, or financial injury by misrepresenting Plaintiff and its business and impeached Plaintiffs honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation in the same manner. 2 3 1 Defendant’s oral statements were defamatory per se under common law. Defendant’s statements injured Plaintiff in Plaintiffs profession by trashing Plaintiff’s business and services. 2 3 2. Defendant’s statements were false because Plaintiff is a quality adoption agency. 2 3 3 Defendants are strictly liable to Plaintiff for the defamation. 24 3. Defendant’s false statements directly and proximately caused injury to Plaintiff which resulted in the following general damages as detailed herein. 35 Plaintiff seeks damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 36 EXEMPLARY DAMAGES Plaintiff’s injury resulted from Defendant’s malice, which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas civil Practice & Remedies Code section 41.00039(a)(2) REQUEST FOR CORRECTION, CLARIFICATION, OR RETRACTION 37 Paragraphs 1-18, 19-24, 26-36 are incorporated by reference herein. 38 On May 4, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant Bridges with a request to retract the false and defamatory statements. The request was served on Defendant within 90 days after Plaintiff had knowledge of its publication. The request is attached as Exhibit A. 39 Defendant’s false and defamatory statement included the following the Plaintiff is closing and Plaintiff is in trouble with the State of Texas Regulators 40 Defendant’s statement was defamatory as detailed herein. COUNT 4- INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 4l Paragraphs 1-18, 19-24, 26-34, 38-40 are incorporated by reference herein. 42 Plaintiff seeks a temporary and permanent injunction ordering Defendants to cease and desist from defaming Plaintiff. 43 It is probable that Plaintiff will recover from Defendants after a trial on the merits because the Defendants have engaged in an ongoing effort to defame Plaintiff and to steal clients. 44 If Plaintiff’s application is not granted, harm is imminent because the Defendants will destroy Plaintiff as an ongoing business entity 45 The harm that will result if the temporary injunction is not issued is irreparable because the business will be depleted and strangled. 46 Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law because present and certainly future damages are incalculable and Defendants are not sufficiently solvent to pay a judgment for destroying Plaintiff’s business REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION 47 Plaintiff asks the Court to set up its application for temporary injunction for hearing and, after the hearing, issue a temporary injunction against Defendants. REQUEST FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 48 Plaintiff asks the Court to set its request for a permanent injunction for a full trial on the merits and, after the trial, issue a permanent injunction against Defendants. PRAYER 49 For these reasons, Plaintiff asks that the Court issue citation to the Defendants to appear and answer, and that Plaintiff be awarded a judgment against Defendants for the following: Temporary injunction Permanent injunction Actual damages Exemplary damages Prejudgment and post-judgment interest Court costs All other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Gary M. Polland Gary M. Polland SBN 16095800 1533 W. Alabama St. Houston, Texas 77006 Telephone: (713) 621-6335 Facsimile: (713) 622-6334 Email: pollandlaw@yahoo.com