Preview
CAUSE NO. 2015-59596
ROBERT BURTON IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
V. 157" JUDICIAL DISTRICT
WAYMAN L PRINCE, INDEPENDENT
MANAGEMENT & INVESTMENT LLC
AND LEAWOOD HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE RANDALL W. WILSON:
NOW COMES, WAYMAN L. PRINCE, ET AL, hereinafter designated as Defendants, in
the above styled and numbered cause, by and through their attorney, Wayman L. Prince, Attorney at
Law, and files this Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions in response to Plaintiff, ROBERT BURTON’S,
frivolous pleading ofa new lawsuit with the same Defendants and the same cause of action but filed in
New York, New York; pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 13, and C.P.R.C. §§10; which clearly
state T.P.R.C. Rule 13; “groundless means no basis in law or fact.” C.P.R.C. §10.001 clearly states:
“signing of a pleading constitutes that each claim, defense or other legal contention in the pleading or
motion is warranted by existing law or non-frivolous argument.”
Defendants respectfully state as follows:
I. JURISDICTION OF COURT
The Plaintiff's case is currently pending in this Court and the subject matter, the condominiums,
are located in Houston, Harris County, Texas. The District Court is a Court of general jurisdiction and
the Plaintiff cannot challenge the jurisdiction (by plea of jurisdiction) of this court to mitigate against
sanctions due to the leading case law:
Kelly v. General Interior Constr., Inc., 301 S.W.3d 653, 658 (Tex.2010); BMC Software
Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 793 (Tex.2002); CSR Ltd. V. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 596
(Tex.1996). “The defendant should plead and prove (1) it is not a Texas resident, (2) it did not have
minimum contacts in Texas, and (3) even if it had some contacts in Texas, the exercise of jurisdiction
would offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. ”..BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d at
795; Guardian Royal Exch. Assur., Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223, 226
(Tex.1991). “If the defendant produces sufficient evidence negating jurisdiction, the burden shifts to the
to show that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant.” M.G.M. Grand Hotel, Inc. v.
plaintiff
Castro, 8 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1999, no pet.).
The Plaintiff is subject to the Court’s general jurisdiction because of the following reasons:
e 1) had the Defendants served in Texas;
2) personally appeared in Texas for mediation in June, 2016;
e 3) previously filed a frivolous lawsuit against four (4) Defendants and attempted service in
Houston, Texas; and
4) Texas Defendants sued on Texas Real Property [six (6) condominiums] in Houston, Texas.
As a result, the Plaintiff is subject to the Court’s general jurisdiction and can be required to appear
at the Oral Hearing on sanctions.
WHEREAS, any special plea to jurisdiction by Plaintiff to challenge the general jurisdiction of
the Court should not be allowed, and the Court should fully address the Defendants’ Motion and Order
to grant sanctions against the Plaintiff.
Il. PURPOSE OF SANCTIONS
TRCP 13. EFFECT OF SIGNING OF PLEADINGS, MOTIONS & OTHER PAPERS;
SANCTIONS
The signatures of attorneys or parties constitute a certificate by them that they have read the
pleading, motion or other paper; that to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief formed a
reasonable inquiry the instrument is not groundless and brought in bad faith or groundless and brought
for the purpose of harassment. Attorneys or parties who shall bring a fictitious suit as an experiment to
get an opinion of the court, or who shall file any fictitious pleading in a cause for such a purpose, or shall
make statements in pleadings which they know to be groundless and false, for the purpose of securing a
delay of the trial of the cause, shall be held guilty of contemp. Ifa pleading, motion or other paper is
signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, after notice and
hearing, shall impose an appropriate sanction, available under Rule 215-2b., upon the person who signed
it, a represented party, or both.
Courts shall presume that pleadings, motion, and other papers are filed in good faith. No
sanctions under this rule may be imposed except for good cause, the particulars of which must be stated
in the sanction order. “Groundless” for purposes of this rule means no basis in law or fact and not
warranted by good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. A general
denial does not constitute a violation of this rule. The amount requested for damages does not constitute
a violation of this rule.
CPRC §10. — 10.001 THRU 10.005
CPRC §10.001 — SIGNING OF PLEADINGS & MOTIONS. The signing of a pleading or motion is
required by the Texas Rules of civil Procedure constitutes a certificate by the signatory that to the
signatory’s best knowledge, information, and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry;
(1) the pleading or motion is not being presented for any improper purpose, including to harass or to
cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) each claim, defense, or other legal contention in the pleading or motion is warranted by existing
law or by a non-frivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or
the establishment of new law;
(3) each allegation or other factual contention in the pleading or motion has evidentiary support or,
for a specifically identified allegation or factual contention, is likely to have evidentiary support
after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) each denial in the pleading or motion of a factual contention is warranted on the evidence or, for
a specifically identified denial, is reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
CPRC §10.002 - MOTION FOR SANCTIONS.
(a) A party may make a motion for sanctions, describing the specific conduct violating Section
10.001.
(b) The Court on its own initiative may enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to
violate Section 10.001 and direct the alleged violator to show cause why the conduct has not
violated that section.
(c) The court may award to a party prevailing on a motion under this section the reasonable expenses
and attorney’s fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion, and if no due diligence is
shown the court may award to the prevailing party all costs for inconvenience, harassment, and
out-of-pocket expenses incurred or caused by the subject litigation.
CPRC §10.003 - NOTICE & OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. The court shall provide a party who
is the subject ofa motion for sanctions under Section 10.002 notice of the allegations and a reasonable
opportunity to respond to the allegation.
CPRC §10.004 - VIOLATION; SANCTION.
(a) A court determines that a person has signed a pleading or motion in violation of Seciton 10.001
may impose a sanction on the person, a party represented by the person, or both.
(b) The sanction must be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of the conduct or
comparable conduct by others similarly situated.
(c) A sanction may include any of the following:
(1)A directive to the violator to perform, or refrain from performing, an act;
(2)An order to pay a penalty into court; and
(3)An order to pay to the other party the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred by the other
party because of the filing of the pleading or motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees.
(d) The court may not award monetary sanctions against a represented party for a violation of
Section 10.001 (2).
(e) The court may not award monetary sanctions on its own initiative unless the court issues its order
to show cause before a voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the
party or the party’s attorney who is to be sanctioned.
(f) The filing ofa general denial under Rule 92, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, shall not be
deemed a violation of this chapter.
CPRC §10.005 — Order. A court shall describe in an order imposing a sanction under this chapter the
conduct the court has determined violated Section 10.001 and explain the basis for the sanction imposed.
ADDITIONAL CASE LAW
Unifund CCR Partners V. Villa, 299 S.W.3d 92, 97 (Tex.2009). “A trial court’s imposition of
sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion. An assessment of sanctions will be reversed only if the
trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules and principles. Such that its ruling was arbitrary
or unreasonable.” (emphasis supplied).
Low v Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609, 618 (Tex.2007). “Pleading in the alternative allows multiple
allegations which may even conflict, to be alleged against a defendant, but there still must be a
reasonable basis for each alternative allegation. Pleading in the alternative does not permit alleging a
claim with no reasonable basis in fact or law ‘in the alternative’ of a claim that does have support.
This is simply not permitted by Texas law.”
Parker v. Walton, 233 S.W.3d, 535, 539-40 (Tex.App.-Houston [14" Dist.] 2007, no pet.). “When
determining whether Rule 13 Sanctions are proper, the trial court must examine the facts available to
the litigant and the circumstances existing when the litigant filed the pleading. Rule 13 requires
sanctions based on the acts or omissions of the represented party or counsel and not merely on the
legal merit of the pleading. The trial court must provide notice and hold an evidentiary hearing ‘to
make the necessary factual determinations about the motives and credibility of the person signing the
groundless petition. ’...Bad faith is not simply bad judgment or negligence; rather, it is on the conscious
doing of a wrong for dishonest, discriminatory or malicious purposes. Improper motive is an essential
element of bad faith, Harassment means that the pleading was intended to annoy, alarm, and abuse
person.” ’ (emphasis supplied).
other person."
another
American Flood Research, Inc. v. Jones, 192 S.W.3d 581, 583 (Tex.2006).
Bedding Component Manufactors, Ltd. V. Royal Sleep Prods., 108 S.W.3d 563, 564 (Tex.App.-Dallas
2003, no pet.) (sanctions under TRCP 13 were reversed because there was no hearing to present
evidence).
Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835, 843-44 (Tex.2004) (nothing in TRCP 215.3 requires an oral
hearing).
Jimenez v. Transwestern Prop. Co., 999 S.W.2d 125, 130 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no
pet.).
Luxenberg v. Marshall, 835 8.W.2d 136, 140-41 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, orig. proceeding).
R.M. Dudley Constr. Co. v. Dawson, 258 S.W.3d 694, 709-10 (Tex.App.-Waco 2008, pet. denied)
(sanctions Under CPRC ch. 10). “A court cannot strike a party’s pleading, render a default judgment, or
impose monetary sanctions without giving the party an opportunity to be heard.”
Spohn Hosp. v. Mayer, 104 S.W.3d 787, 882 (Tex.2003). If death-penalty sanctions are imposed, the
court must also (1) state that a lesser sanction was imposed without effect, or provide a reasoned
explanation why a lesser sanction was not imposed and why the death-penalty sanction was appropriate
and (2) state that the party’s conduct justifies the presumption that is claims or defenses lack merit.
III. CONCLUSION
Now, Exhibit “1”, attached hereto and made a part hereof, the recent lawsuit is clearly frivolous
since according to Exhibit “2”, attached hereto and made a part hereof, the prior lawsuit (case) had been
dismissed due to the New York Court receiving no complaint in the case.
The Plaintiff continues to file in “bad faith” “harassing the Defendants” and wasting judicial
economy of time and resources by attempting to exercise a “vendetta” against the four (4) Defendants.
Indication of harassing conduct by Plaintiff, ROBERT BURTON, (See Exhibits “3”, “the evil empire
has been served” and Exhibit “4” “2"4 email dated 9/1/2016”, attached hereto and made a part hereof),
will indicate that Plaintiff's sole mission is to harass Defendants and not work towards a conclusion of
the litigation. Plaintiff, BURTON, is quite aware that New York does not have jurisdiction to hear this
matter.
As aresult, the Defendants Affidavit of Reasonable Attorney fees and court costs should be
granted.
WHEREFORE, the aggregate of this frivolous pleading filed on July 7, 2016 warrant sanctions
being imposed under T.R.C.P. Rule 13 and C.P.R.C. §10.001 through §10.005 to finally end the
nonsensical pleadings which are blatantly frivolous without any basis in fact or law.
Attorney Wayman L. Prince prays for Sanctions in the amounts of Two Thousand Dollars
($2,000.00) and Court Costs of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) for having to respond to this frivolous
filing, with an aggregate total of Two Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($2,100.00). Asa result, the relief
requested is as follows: The Order Granting Sanctions be signed and entered by this Court along with
any other relief that the Court may award in equity or law including additional attorney fees, court costs,
pre judgment interest, and post-judgement interest.
Respectfully submitted,
Wayman L. Prince, Attorney at Law
Wayman L. Prince, Attorney at Law
LAW OFFICES OF ATTORNEY WAYMAN L. PRINCE
9111 Katy Freeway — Suite 301
Houston, Texas 77024
(713) 467-1659
(713) 467-1686 Fax
T.B.A. #16329350
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
Preview
CAUSE NO. 2015-59596 ROBERT BURTON IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF V. 157" JUDICIAL DISTRICT WAYMAN L PRINCE, INDEPENDENT MANAGEMENT & INVESTMENT LLC AND LEAWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE RANDALL W. WILSON: NOW COMES, WAYMAN L. PRINCE, ET AL, hereinafter designated as Defendants, in the above styled and numbered cause, by and through their attorney, Wayman L. Prince, Attorney at Law, and files this Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions in response to Plaintiff, ROBERT BURTON’S, frivolous pleading ofa new lawsuit with the same Defendants and the same cause of action but filed in New York, New York; pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 13, and C.P.R.C. §§10; which clearly state T.P.R.C. Rule 13; “groundless means no basis in law or fact.” C.P.R.C. §10.001 clearly states: “signing of a pleading constitutes that each claim, defense or other legal contention in the pleading or motion is warranted by existing law or non-frivolous argument.” Defendants respectfully state as follows: I. JURISDICTION OF COURT The Plaintiff's case is currently pending in this Court and the subject matter, the condominiums, are located in Houston, Harris County, Texas. The District Court is a Court of general jurisdiction and the Plaintiff cannot challenge the jurisdiction (by plea of jurisdiction) of this court to mitigate against sanctions due to the leading case law: Kelly v. General Interior Constr., Inc., 301 S.W.3d 653, 658 (Tex.2010); BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 793 (Tex.2002); CSR Ltd. V. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 596 (Tex.1996). “The defendant should plead and prove (1) it is not a Texas resident, (2) it did not have minimum contacts in Texas, and (3) even if it had some contacts in Texas, the exercise of jurisdiction would offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. ”..BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d at 795; Guardian Royal Exch. Assur., Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex.1991). “If the defendant produces sufficient evidence negating jurisdiction, the burden shifts to the to show that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant.” M.G.M. Grand Hotel, Inc. v. plaintiff Castro, 8 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1999, no pet.). The Plaintiff is subject to the Court’s general jurisdiction because of the following reasons: e 1) had the Defendants served in Texas; 2) personally appeared in Texas for mediation in June, 2016; e 3) previously filed a frivolous lawsuit against four (4) Defendants and attempted service in Houston, Texas; and 4) Texas Defendants sued on Texas Real Property [six (6) condominiums] in Houston, Texas. As a result, the Plaintiff is subject to the Court’s general jurisdiction and can be required to appear at the Oral Hearing on sanctions. WHEREAS, any special plea to jurisdiction by Plaintiff to challenge the general jurisdiction of the Court should not be allowed, and the Court should fully address the Defendants’ Motion and Order to grant sanctions against the Plaintiff. Il. PURPOSE OF SANCTIONS TRCP 13. EFFECT OF SIGNING OF PLEADINGS, MOTIONS & OTHER PAPERS; SANCTIONS The signatures of attorneys or parties constitute a certificate by them that they have read the pleading, motion or other paper; that to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief formed a reasonable inquiry the instrument is not groundless and brought in bad faith or groundless and brought for the purpose of harassment. Attorneys or parties who shall bring a fictitious suit as an experiment to get an opinion of the court, or who shall file any fictitious pleading in a cause for such a purpose, or shall make statements in pleadings which they know to be groundless and false, for the purpose of securing a delay of the trial of the cause, shall be held guilty of contemp. Ifa pleading, motion or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, after notice and hearing, shall impose an appropriate sanction, available under Rule 215-2b., upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both. Courts shall presume that pleadings, motion, and other papers are filed in good faith. No sanctions under this rule may be imposed except for good cause, the particulars of which must be stated in the sanction order. “Groundless” for purposes of this rule means no basis in law or fact and not warranted by good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. A general denial does not constitute a violation of this rule. The amount requested for damages does not constitute a violation of this rule. CPRC §10. — 10.001 THRU 10.005 CPRC §10.001 — SIGNING OF PLEADINGS & MOTIONS. The signing of a pleading or motion is required by the Texas Rules of civil Procedure constitutes a certificate by the signatory that to the signatory’s best knowledge, information, and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry; (1) the pleading or motion is not being presented for any improper purpose, including to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; (2) each claim, defense, or other legal contention in the pleading or motion is warranted by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law; (3) each allegation or other factual contention in the pleading or motion has evidentiary support or, for a specifically identified allegation or factual contention, is likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) each denial in the pleading or motion of a factual contention is warranted on the evidence or, for a specifically identified denial, is reasonably based on a lack of information or belief. CPRC §10.002 - MOTION FOR SANCTIONS. (a) A party may make a motion for sanctions, describing the specific conduct violating Section 10.001. (b) The Court on its own initiative may enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate Section 10.001 and direct the alleged violator to show cause why the conduct has not violated that section. (c) The court may award to a party prevailing on a motion under this section the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion, and if no due diligence is shown the court may award to the prevailing party all costs for inconvenience, harassment, and out-of-pocket expenses incurred or caused by the subject litigation. CPRC §10.003 - NOTICE & OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. The court shall provide a party who is the subject ofa motion for sanctions under Section 10.002 notice of the allegations and a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegation. CPRC §10.004 - VIOLATION; SANCTION. (a) A court determines that a person has signed a pleading or motion in violation of Seciton 10.001 may impose a sanction on the person, a party represented by the person, or both. (b) The sanction must be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. (c) A sanction may include any of the following: (1)A directive to the violator to perform, or refrain from performing, an act; (2)An order to pay a penalty into court; and (3)An order to pay to the other party the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred by the other party because of the filing of the pleading or motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees. (d) The court may not award monetary sanctions against a represented party for a violation of Section 10.001 (2). (e) The court may not award monetary sanctions on its own initiative unless the court issues its order to show cause before a voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party or the party’s attorney who is to be sanctioned. (f) The filing ofa general denial under Rule 92, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, shall not be deemed a violation of this chapter. CPRC §10.005 — Order. A court shall describe in an order imposing a sanction under this chapter the conduct the court has determined violated Section 10.001 and explain the basis for the sanction imposed. ADDITIONAL CASE LAW Unifund CCR Partners V. Villa, 299 S.W.3d 92, 97 (Tex.2009). “A trial court’s imposition of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion. An assessment of sanctions will be reversed only if the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules and principles. Such that its ruling was arbitrary or unreasonable.” (emphasis supplied). Low v Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609, 618 (Tex.2007). “Pleading in the alternative allows multiple allegations which may even conflict, to be alleged against a defendant, but there still must be a reasonable basis for each alternative allegation. Pleading in the alternative does not permit alleging a claim with no reasonable basis in fact or law ‘in the alternative’ of a claim that does have support. This is simply not permitted by Texas law.” Parker v. Walton, 233 S.W.3d, 535, 539-40 (Tex.App.-Houston [14" Dist.] 2007, no pet.). “When determining whether Rule 13 Sanctions are proper, the trial court must examine the facts available to the litigant and the circumstances existing when the litigant filed the pleading. Rule 13 requires sanctions based on the acts or omissions of the represented party or counsel and not merely on the legal merit of the pleading. The trial court must provide notice and hold an evidentiary hearing ‘to make the necessary factual determinations about the motives and credibility of the person signing the groundless petition. ’...Bad faith is not simply bad judgment or negligence; rather, it is on the conscious doing of a wrong for dishonest, discriminatory or malicious purposes. Improper motive is an essential element of bad faith, Harassment means that the pleading was intended to annoy, alarm, and abuse person.” ’ (emphasis supplied). other person." another American Flood Research, Inc. v. Jones, 192 S.W.3d 581, 583 (Tex.2006). Bedding Component Manufactors, Ltd. V. Royal Sleep Prods., 108 S.W.3d 563, 564 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.) (sanctions under TRCP 13 were reversed because there was no hearing to present evidence). Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835, 843-44 (Tex.2004) (nothing in TRCP 215.3 requires an oral hearing). Jimenez v. Transwestern Prop. Co., 999 S.W.2d 125, 130 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.). Luxenberg v. Marshall, 835 8.W.2d 136, 140-41 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, orig. proceeding). R.M. Dudley Constr. Co. v. Dawson, 258 S.W.3d 694, 709-10 (Tex.App.-Waco 2008, pet. denied) (sanctions Under CPRC ch. 10). “A court cannot strike a party’s pleading, render a default judgment, or impose monetary sanctions without giving the party an opportunity to be heard.” Spohn Hosp. v. Mayer, 104 S.W.3d 787, 882 (Tex.2003). If death-penalty sanctions are imposed, the court must also (1) state that a lesser sanction was imposed without effect, or provide a reasoned explanation why a lesser sanction was not imposed and why the death-penalty sanction was appropriate and (2) state that the party’s conduct justifies the presumption that is claims or defenses lack merit. III. CONCLUSION Now, Exhibit “1”, attached hereto and made a part hereof, the recent lawsuit is clearly frivolous since according to Exhibit “2”, attached hereto and made a part hereof, the prior lawsuit (case) had been dismissed due to the New York Court receiving no complaint in the case. The Plaintiff continues to file in “bad faith” “harassing the Defendants” and wasting judicial economy of time and resources by attempting to exercise a “vendetta” against the four (4) Defendants. Indication of harassing conduct by Plaintiff, ROBERT BURTON, (See Exhibits “3”, “the evil empire has been served” and Exhibit “4” “2"4 email dated 9/1/2016”, attached hereto and made a part hereof), will indicate that Plaintiff's sole mission is to harass Defendants and not work towards a conclusion of the litigation. Plaintiff, BURTON, is quite aware that New York does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter. As aresult, the Defendants Affidavit of Reasonable Attorney fees and court costs should be granted. WHEREFORE, the aggregate of this frivolous pleading filed on July 7, 2016 warrant sanctions being imposed under T.R.C.P. Rule 13 and C.P.R.C. §10.001 through §10.005 to finally end the nonsensical pleadings which are blatantly frivolous without any basis in fact or law. Attorney Wayman L. Prince prays for Sanctions in the amounts of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) and Court Costs of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) for having to respond to this frivolous filing, with an aggregate total of Two Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($2,100.00). Asa result, the relief requested is as follows: The Order Granting Sanctions be signed and entered by this Court along with any other relief that the Court may award in equity or law including additional attorney fees, court costs, pre judgment interest, and post-judgement interest. Respectfully submitted, Wayman L. Prince, Attorney at Law Wayman L. Prince, Attorney at Law LAW OFFICES OF ATTORNEY WAYMAN L. PRINCE 9111 Katy Freeway — Suite 301 Houston, Texas 77024 (713) 467-1659 (713) 467-1686 Fax T.B.A. #16329350 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS