Preview
SUGAR LAND CUBED, LLC, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE §
CORP., §
FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE, CORP.’S
ORIGINAL ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIM
Defendant The Learning Experience Corp. (“TLE” or “Defendant”) files this Answer to
the Original Petition of Plaintiff Sugar Land Cubed, LLC (“SLC” or Plaintiff”), Affirmative
GENERAL DENIAL
In accordance with the rights granted Defendant by Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure, Defendant generally denies each and every, all and singular, material allegation
contained in Plaintiff’s Original be required to prove its charges
and allegations against Defendant as required by the Constitution and the laws of the State of
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Except to the extent expressly admitted
allegations of the Petition and demands strict proof thereof.
in part, because they fail to state a cause
law and formulaic recitations of the
elements of its claims without adequate supporting facts, details, or events to support such
elements.
Plaintiff’s claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any losses Plaintiff has
sustained or will sustain are due to Plaintiff’s own failures and omissions and Plaintiff’s own
Plaintiff’s claims and/or damages may be limited by the after-acquired evidence
doctrine.
Plaintiff’s claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of unclean
hands, laches, estoppel, ratification, acquiescence, consent, agreement, accord and satisfaction,
release, payment, and/or waiver.
Plaintiff is precluded from any recovery because Plaintiff has not suffered any
damages or any legally recognizable injury and/or the damages Plai
Parol evidence is inadmissible to vary the clear and unambiguous terms of the
Plaintiff’s claims are barr
Plaintiff has failed to mitig
e Petition was undertaken in good faith.
At the time of filing this Answer, Defendant has neither commenced nor
completed discovery in this cause and respectfully reserves the right to amend this Answer based
EFENDANT RIGINAL NSWER EFENSES OUNTERCLAIM
on discovery of additional information or affirmative defenses at a later date, up to and including
the time of trial.
COUNTERCLAIM
ence Corp. (“TLE”) files
this Counterclaim against Plai
Land”) as follows:
Discovery Control Plan
Discovery will be conducted under Level 2 of Rule 190.3 of the Texas Rules of
Land has appeared in this case and has consented
to jurisdiction and venue by filing this lawsuit, and this Counterclaim is being served upon
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter because the amount in
controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court.
In accordance with Rule 47 of the Texas Ru
it seeks only monetary relief of $250,000 or less, excluding interest, statutory or punitive damages
ey fees and costs.
On or about November 24, 2014, Sugar Land’s predecessor-in-interest Spring
Daycare, LLC (“Landlord”) and TLE at Sugar Land, LLC (“Tenant”) entered into a lease
agreement (and as thereafter amended, the “Lease”) for the premises located at the Intersection
EFENDANT RIGINAL NSWER EFENSES OUNTERCLAIM
of West Airport Road and Old Richmond Road, Sugar Land, Texas 77498 (the “Leased
In connection with the Lease, TLE executed a Guaranty of Rent (the “Guaranty”),
whereby TLE guaranteed certain of Tenant’s Rent obligations under the Lease. Upon information
attached to Plaintiff’s Petition.
Pursuant to the Lease, Tenant was responsible certain costs and expenses related
to the operation and maintenance of the Leased Premises, including “insurance, repair and
replacement,” among other things. In addition, and as relevant here, Tenant was to maintain, at
its sole cost and expense, the Leased Premises’ air conditioning and hearing units and systems
Pursuant to its obligations under the Lease, Tenant likewise maintained the
requisite insurance coverage, including insurance to reimburse Tenant for any damages resulting
During the term of the Lease, the HVAC system in the Leased Premises
experienced issues, subsequently causing certain water and mold damage to the Leased Premises
In compliance with Tenant’s obligations under the Lease, TLE engaged a third-
party contractor to perform the necessary repairs to the Leased Premises resulting from the water
The costs incurred by TLE for the water and mold damage totaled not less than
$127,000 (the “Repair Costs”).
After paying for the Repair Costs out of pocket, TLE submitted a claim to its
insurance carrier for reimburseme
EFENDANT RIGINAL NSWER EFENSES OUNTERCLAIM
On information and belief, the insurance carrier required that an insurance
adjuster inspect the Leased Premises and HVAC system to confirm that coverage applied to the
On information and belief, Sugar Land inexplicably and arbitrarily refused, and
continues to so refuse, to allow the insurance adjuster to access to the Leased Premises.
Through its actions, Sugar Land has intentionally interfered with TLE’s ability to
ir Costs under the very insurance policy Tenant was required
to maintain on the Leased Premises.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
All conditions precedent to TLE’s counterclaim for relief have been performed or
COUNT I – TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
TLE incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
TLE had a valid contract with its insurance carrier for reimbursement of claims
related to the Repair Costs.
Sugar Land willfully and intentionally interfered with that contract by refusing to
allow the insurance adjuster access to the Leased Premises to satisfy the requirements for
Sugar Land’s interference proximately caused TLE’s damages in an amount not
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Based on the foregoing, TLE prays that Sugar Land take nothing on its Original
Petition, that the Original Petition be dismissed with prejudice in its entirety, that judgment be
EFENDANT RIGINAL NSWER EFENSES OUNTERCLAIM
favor of TLE, that TLE be awarded actual damages in an
amount to proven at trial in addition to pre- and post-judgment interest, that Sugar Land
reimburse TLE for all reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and expenses and all court costs,
Dated: July 12, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
REENBERG LLP
By: _/s/ Cara Kelly
Cara Kelly
State Bar No. 24074518
kellyc@gtlaw.com
Anna Robshaw
State Bar No. 24107978
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 1700
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT THE
LEARNING EXPERIENCE CORP.
EFENDANT RIGINAL NSWER EFENSES OUNTERCLAIM
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served upon
REDENNICK via Certified Mail, RRR
via U.S. Mail (First Class)
via Electronic Mail
via Fax
rick@dtlawyers.com via Hand Delivery
via Messenger
via E-Filing
via Federal Express
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
EFENDANT RIGINAL NSWER EFENSES OUNTERCLAIM
Preview
SUGAR LAND CUBED, LLC, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE § CORP., § FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE, CORP.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIM Defendant The Learning Experience Corp. (“TLE” or “Defendant”) files this Answer to the Original Petition of Plaintiff Sugar Land Cubed, LLC (“SLC” or Plaintiff”), Affirmative GENERAL DENIAL In accordance with the rights granted Defendant by Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant generally denies each and every, all and singular, material allegation contained in Plaintiff’s Original be required to prove its charges and allegations against Defendant as required by the Constitution and the laws of the State of AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Except to the extent expressly admitted allegations of the Petition and demands strict proof thereof. in part, because they fail to state a cause law and formulaic recitations of the elements of its claims without adequate supporting facts, details, or events to support such elements. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any losses Plaintiff has sustained or will sustain are due to Plaintiff’s own failures and omissions and Plaintiff’s own Plaintiff’s claims and/or damages may be limited by the after-acquired evidence doctrine. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of unclean hands, laches, estoppel, ratification, acquiescence, consent, agreement, accord and satisfaction, release, payment, and/or waiver. Plaintiff is precluded from any recovery because Plaintiff has not suffered any damages or any legally recognizable injury and/or the damages Plai Parol evidence is inadmissible to vary the clear and unambiguous terms of the Plaintiff’s claims are barr Plaintiff has failed to mitig e Petition was undertaken in good faith. At the time of filing this Answer, Defendant has neither commenced nor completed discovery in this cause and respectfully reserves the right to amend this Answer based EFENDANT RIGINAL NSWER EFENSES OUNTERCLAIM on discovery of additional information or affirmative defenses at a later date, up to and including the time of trial. COUNTERCLAIM ence Corp. (“TLE”) files this Counterclaim against Plai Land”) as follows: Discovery Control Plan Discovery will be conducted under Level 2 of Rule 190.3 of the Texas Rules of Land has appeared in this case and has consented to jurisdiction and venue by filing this lawsuit, and this Counterclaim is being served upon This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter because the amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court. In accordance with Rule 47 of the Texas Ru it seeks only monetary relief of $250,000 or less, excluding interest, statutory or punitive damages ey fees and costs. On or about November 24, 2014, Sugar Land’s predecessor-in-interest Spring Daycare, LLC (“Landlord”) and TLE at Sugar Land, LLC (“Tenant”) entered into a lease agreement (and as thereafter amended, the “Lease”) for the premises located at the Intersection EFENDANT RIGINAL NSWER EFENSES OUNTERCLAIM of West Airport Road and Old Richmond Road, Sugar Land, Texas 77498 (the “Leased In connection with the Lease, TLE executed a Guaranty of Rent (the “Guaranty”), whereby TLE guaranteed certain of Tenant’s Rent obligations under the Lease. Upon information attached to Plaintiff’s Petition. Pursuant to the Lease, Tenant was responsible certain costs and expenses related to the operation and maintenance of the Leased Premises, including “insurance, repair and replacement,” among other things. In addition, and as relevant here, Tenant was to maintain, at its sole cost and expense, the Leased Premises’ air conditioning and hearing units and systems Pursuant to its obligations under the Lease, Tenant likewise maintained the requisite insurance coverage, including insurance to reimburse Tenant for any damages resulting During the term of the Lease, the HVAC system in the Leased Premises experienced issues, subsequently causing certain water and mold damage to the Leased Premises In compliance with Tenant’s obligations under the Lease, TLE engaged a third- party contractor to perform the necessary repairs to the Leased Premises resulting from the water The costs incurred by TLE for the water and mold damage totaled not less than $127,000 (the “Repair Costs”). After paying for the Repair Costs out of pocket, TLE submitted a claim to its insurance carrier for reimburseme EFENDANT RIGINAL NSWER EFENSES OUNTERCLAIM On information and belief, the insurance carrier required that an insurance adjuster inspect the Leased Premises and HVAC system to confirm that coverage applied to the On information and belief, Sugar Land inexplicably and arbitrarily refused, and continues to so refuse, to allow the insurance adjuster to access to the Leased Premises. Through its actions, Sugar Land has intentionally interfered with TLE’s ability to ir Costs under the very insurance policy Tenant was required to maintain on the Leased Premises. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT All conditions precedent to TLE’s counterclaim for relief have been performed or COUNT I – TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT TLE incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. TLE had a valid contract with its insurance carrier for reimbursement of claims related to the Repair Costs. Sugar Land willfully and intentionally interfered with that contract by refusing to allow the insurance adjuster access to the Leased Premises to satisfy the requirements for Sugar Land’s interference proximately caused TLE’s damages in an amount not PRAYER FOR RELIEF Based on the foregoing, TLE prays that Sugar Land take nothing on its Original Petition, that the Original Petition be dismissed with prejudice in its entirety, that judgment be EFENDANT RIGINAL NSWER EFENSES OUNTERCLAIM favor of TLE, that TLE be awarded actual damages in an amount to proven at trial in addition to pre- and post-judgment interest, that Sugar Land reimburse TLE for all reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and expenses and all court costs, Dated: July 12, 2021 Respectfully submitted, REENBERG LLP By: _/s/ Cara Kelly Cara Kelly State Bar No. 24074518 kellyc@gtlaw.com Anna Robshaw State Bar No. 24107978 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 1700 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE CORP. EFENDANT RIGINAL NSWER EFENSES OUNTERCLAIM I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served upon REDENNICK via Certified Mail, RRR via U.S. Mail (First Class) via Electronic Mail via Fax rick@dtlawyers.com via Hand Delivery via Messenger via E-Filing via Federal Express COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF EFENDANT RIGINAL NSWER EFENSES OUNTERCLAIM