On March 28, 2022 a
Letter,Correspondence
was filed
involving a dispute between
Classic Abodes, Llc,
Doppalapudi, Lalitha,
Saranu, Srinivas,
and
Bandaru, Nagarajitha,
Saranu, Giri,
Value Growth Co Celina, Lp,
Value Growth Co Gunter, Lp,
Value Growth Co Heath, Lp,
Value Growth Co Llc,
Value Growth Ventures Forney, Lp,
Value Growth Ventures, Llc,
Vankayalapati, Vara,
Vgc Celina, Llc,
Vgc Gunter, Llc,
Vgc Heath, Llc,
Vgv Forney, Llc,
for OTHER CONTRACT
in the District Court of Dallas County.
Preview
FILED
8/3/2022 6:07 PM
FELICIA PITRE
LYNN PINKER HURST SCHWEGMANN DISTRICT CLERK
DALLASCOJEXAS
Margaret Thomas DEPUTY
GREG BRASSFIELD Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann, LLP
Associate 2100 Ross Avenue
Suite 2700
D 214 981 3827 Dallas, Texas 75201
F 214981 3839 lynnllp.com
gbrassfield@|ynn|lp.com
August 3, 2022
Via Email and Texas eFile
Hon. Tahira K. Merritt
Associate Judge
Dallas County, Texas
Tahira.K.Merritt@ dallascourts.or2
Hon. Maricela Moore
District Judge
162nd Judicial District
Dallas County, Texas
Re: Cause No. DC—22—03390, 54mm, ez‘. a]. v. Value Growth et. 4/.
Judge Merritt:
We write in response to the Memorandum to the Court filed by Plaintiffs in
connection with today’s hearing on Value Growth’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens. This
response addresses three points. First, the two cases provided by Plaintiffs to the Court
punctuate Why the six illegal lis pendens must be expunged. Second, Plaintiffs’ repeated
request for a continuance fails to identify the desired discovery and does not identify a single
piece of information that could be discovered that would help the Court decide whether to
expunge the six illegal lis pendens. Third, the Court should not entertain additional briefing
because Plaintiffs had nearly three weeks to file a response, but chose to file an untimely
response less than one business day before the hearing.
A. The two cases provided by Plaintiffs to the Court punctuate Why the six illegal
lis pendens must be expunged.
Plaintiffs rely on two cases: In re Cohen, 340 S.W.3d 889 (Tex. App—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2011, no pet.) and Walker e. Walker, 631 SW3d 259 (Tex. App—Houston [14th Dist.]
2020, no pet.). Neither authority ameliorates the simple fact that Plaintiffs’ Original Petition
does not make a claim for, or raise a factual question as to whether Plaintiffs have, a direct
interest in real property.
In In Coke”, the relator at various times held title to each of three properties. 340
re
S.W.3d at 890. In his role as a trustee, relator filed suit claiming that: (1) the properties were
fraudulently encumbered by liens; and (2) fraudulently transferred away from the proper
owners. Id. In connection with that action, the relator filed lis pendens on each of the three
properties and the putative owners moved to expunge under Tex. Prop. Code § 12.0071. Id.
LETTER BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM TO THE COURT PAGE 1 OF 4
The appellate court found that expungement was not proper because the relator had pleaded
an interest in real property. Specifically, the court found persuasive the relators pleading which
sought to “recoverfl the real property at issue. . ..” Id. at 897. In other words, there is nothing
remarkable about a lis pendens so long as it is related to an action where a party is “requesting
the restoration of a prior ownership interest in a particularly identified property. . . .” Id. at 898.
Notably, the court took care to highlight that where a party seeks a constructive trust “only to
satisfy a money judgment against the defendant, courts have found cancellation of lis pendens
proper because those claims do not involve a direct interest in real property.” Id.
As illustrated in the hearing this morning, Plaintiffs’ Original Petition did nothing more
than seek money damages and a constructive trust related to a request for money damages. At
no point did it request “the restoration of a prior ownership” like the relator in In re C0196”.
G. Saranu Value Remedy
Growth
Count 1: X “unliquidated and exemplary
Common-law damages” (1] 34)
fraud (1H 29-35)
Count 2: statutory X “unliquidated damages” (1i 42)
fraud (1H 36-42)
Count 3: Breach X “unliquidated and exemplary
of contract (1H 43- damages” (1] 49)
49)
Count 4: Breach f X “exemplary damages” (1] 56)
fiduciary duty(1fil
50-55)
Count 5: X X “obtain a constructive trust. . .for
Constructive trust any benefit or unjust enrichment
(1H 29-34) they may have received from real
money or real property transfers” (1]
58) “(i) any and all actual damages;
accounting and records;
prejudgment and post—judgment
interest; exemplary damages;
attorney fees; any and all cost of the
court” (p.10)
Next, Plaintiffs rely on Walker I). Walker, 631 S.W.3d 259 (T ex. App—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2020, no pet.). That case is equally unavailing. Walker was a case about the rightful
ownership of a residence. Id at 262. (“Glynn and Melinda Walker sued Glynn’s father and
brother Ronald and Layne Walker regarding ownership of a beach house”). Again, Plaintiffs’
Original Petition does not seek an ownership interest in any of the subject properties, does
not claim Plaintiffs were deprived of an ownership interest, does not allege Plaintiffs were
damaged as a result of being deprived of an ownership interest, and does not seek to restore
prior ownership.
In sum In re Cohen and Walker are perfect illustrations of why the Court must expunge
the six illegal lis pendens.
B. Plaintiffs’ repeated request for a continuance still does not identify a single
piece of information that could be discovered that would help the Court decide
whether to expunge the six illegal lis pendens.
As a threshold matter, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Continuance was not properly before the
Court, was not set by Judge Moore’s chambers, and was not properly noticed under the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Rules of Dallas County. That aside, Plaintiffs still have not
identified a single, solitary fact that would inform the Court’s decision. The fact of the matter
is that the six lis pendens were illegally filed by Plaintiffs. There is no discoverable fact that
would or could change things. The untimely, improper, and futile request for discovery should
be denied.
C. The Court should not entertain additional briefing because Plaintiffs had nearly
three weeks to file a response, but chose to file an untimely response less than
one business day before the hearing.
Again, as a threshold matter, the Court should not entertain additional briefing. The
time to brief was in the weeks between the time Value Growth filed its Motion to Expunge
Lis Pendens and the hearing held this morning. Indeed, Plaintiffs M
file an untimely response
less than one business day before the hearing.
In any event, such an effort would be futile because no amount of briefing can fix the
incurable defects with the six illegal lis pendens. Plaintiffs allude to paragraphs 13-15, l8, 20,
27, and 54 as supposedly establishing claims against real property. Nonsense. The Court knows
what the claims are and what the relief sought is:
G. Saranu Value Remedy
Growth
Count 1: X “unliquidated and exemplary
Common-law damages” (1} 34)
fraud (1W 29-35)
Count 2: statutory X “unliquidated damages” (1} 42)
fraud (1W 36-42)
Count 3: Breach X “unliquidated and exemplary
of contract (1H 43- damages” (1] 49)
49)
Count 4: Breach f “exemplary damages” (1] 56)
fiduciary duty(1HI
50-55)
Count 5: “obtain a constructive trust. . .for
Constructive trust any benefit or unjust enrichment
(1H 29-34) they may have received from real
money or real property transfers” (1}
58) “(i) any and all actual damages;
accounting and records;
prejudgment and post-judgment
interest; exemplary damages;
attorney fees; any and all cost of the
court” (p.10)
Plaintiffs cannot mutate the plain meaning of its claims t0 escape the fact that it filed six illegal
lis pendens and now must answer for its improper resort to self—help.
The referenced affidavits are equally useless to the Court’s analysis. The affidavits do
not claim an interest in any property, do not seek to recover real property, and do not allege
damages based on the deprivation of real property. Again, the affidavits concern themselves
with money damages. In any event, Plaintiffs had ample opportunity to present any evidence
they chose to the Court and did not do so. Thus, even if the affidavits contained helpful
information, and they do not as a matter of law, Plaintiffs waived their right to present the
evidence through their own lack of diligence.
CONCLUSION
We urge the Court to follow the clear standards set forth under the Texas Property
Code and directions of the Dallas Court of Appeals and grant the Motion to Expunge Lis
Pendens.
Respectfully submitted,
flmfllfiwfldp
Gregory A. Brassfield
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this
document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below.
The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate
of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Envelope ID: 66949941
Status as of 8/4/2022 8:37 AM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Michael S.Gardner mg@gardnerhaas.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT
Mariela Cawthon mcawthon@lynnllp.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT
Jeremy Camp jc@gardnerhaas.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT
Ricardo Guerra 24074331 service@guerradays.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT
John D.Volney jvolney@lynnllp.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT
April Kimrey akimrey@lynnllp.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT
Gloria Hernandez ghernandez@lynnllp.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT
Sergio Castillo 24126757 sergio@guerradays.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT
Alex Cleeter ac@gardnerhaas.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT
Cory C.Johnson cjohnson@lynnllp.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT
Pamela Oakley poakley@lynnllp.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT
Greg Brassfield gbrassfield@lynnllp.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT
Shannon Webb admin@gardnerhaas.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 8/3/2022 6:07 PM FELICIA PITRE LYNN PINKER HURST SCHWEGMANN DISTRICT CLERK DALLASCOJEXAS Margaret Thomas DEPUTY GREG BRASSFIELD Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann, LLP Associate 2100 Ross Avenue Suite 2700 D 214 981 3827 Dallas, Texas 75201 F 214981 3839 lynnllp.com gbrassfield@|ynn|lp.com August 3, 2022 Via Email and Texas eFile Hon. Tahira K. Merritt Associate Judge Dallas County, Texas Tahira.K.Merritt@ dallascourts.or2 Hon. Maricela Moore District Judge 162nd Judicial District Dallas County, Texas Re: Cause No. DC—22—03390, 54mm, ez‘. a]. v. Value Growth et. 4/. Judge Merritt: We write in response to the Memorandum to the Court filed by Plaintiffs in connection with today’s hearing on Value Growth’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens. This response addresses three points. First, the two cases provided by Plaintiffs to the Court punctuate Why the six illegal lis pendens must be expunged. Second, Plaintiffs’ repeated request for a continuance fails to identify the desired discovery and does not identify a single piece of information that could be discovered that would help the Court decide whether to expunge the six illegal lis pendens. Third, the Court should not entertain additional briefing because Plaintiffs had nearly three weeks to file a response, but chose to file an untimely response less than one business day before the hearing. A. The two cases provided by Plaintiffs to the Court punctuate Why the six illegal lis pendens must be expunged. Plaintiffs rely on two cases: In re Cohen, 340 S.W.3d 889 (Tex. App—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.) and Walker e. Walker, 631 SW3d 259 (Tex. App—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.). Neither authority ameliorates the simple fact that Plaintiffs’ Original Petition does not make a claim for, or raise a factual question as to whether Plaintiffs have, a direct interest in real property. In In Coke”, the relator at various times held title to each of three properties. 340 re S.W.3d at 890. In his role as a trustee, relator filed suit claiming that: (1) the properties were fraudulently encumbered by liens; and (2) fraudulently transferred away from the proper owners. Id. In connection with that action, the relator filed lis pendens on each of the three properties and the putative owners moved to expunge under Tex. Prop. Code § 12.0071. Id. LETTER BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM TO THE COURT PAGE 1 OF 4 The appellate court found that expungement was not proper because the relator had pleaded an interest in real property. Specifically, the court found persuasive the relators pleading which sought to “recoverfl the real property at issue. . ..” Id. at 897. In other words, there is nothing remarkable about a lis pendens so long as it is related to an action where a party is “requesting the restoration of a prior ownership interest in a particularly identified property. . . .” Id. at 898. Notably, the court took care to highlight that where a party seeks a constructive trust “only to satisfy a money judgment against the defendant, courts have found cancellation of lis pendens proper because those claims do not involve a direct interest in real property.” Id. As illustrated in the hearing this morning, Plaintiffs’ Original Petition did nothing more than seek money damages and a constructive trust related to a request for money damages. At no point did it request “the restoration of a prior ownership” like the relator in In re C0196”. G. Saranu Value Remedy Growth Count 1: X “unliquidated and exemplary Common-law damages” (1] 34) fraud (1H 29-35) Count 2: statutory X “unliquidated damages” (1i 42) fraud (1H 36-42) Count 3: Breach X “unliquidated and exemplary of contract (1H 43- damages” (1] 49) 49) Count 4: Breach f X “exemplary damages” (1] 56) fiduciary duty(1fil 50-55) Count 5: X X “obtain a constructive trust. . .for Constructive trust any benefit or unjust enrichment (1H 29-34) they may have received from real money or real property transfers” (1] 58) “(i) any and all actual damages; accounting and records; prejudgment and post—judgment interest; exemplary damages; attorney fees; any and all cost of the court” (p.10) Next, Plaintiffs rely on Walker I). Walker, 631 S.W.3d 259 (T ex. App—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.). That case is equally unavailing. Walker was a case about the rightful ownership of a residence. Id at 262. (“Glynn and Melinda Walker sued Glynn’s father and brother Ronald and Layne Walker regarding ownership of a beach house”). Again, Plaintiffs’ Original Petition does not seek an ownership interest in any of the subject properties, does not claim Plaintiffs were deprived of an ownership interest, does not allege Plaintiffs were damaged as a result of being deprived of an ownership interest, and does not seek to restore prior ownership. In sum In re Cohen and Walker are perfect illustrations of why the Court must expunge the six illegal lis pendens. B. Plaintiffs’ repeated request for a continuance still does not identify a single piece of information that could be discovered that would help the Court decide whether to expunge the six illegal lis pendens. As a threshold matter, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Continuance was not properly before the Court, was not set by Judge Moore’s chambers, and was not properly noticed under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Rules of Dallas County. That aside, Plaintiffs still have not identified a single, solitary fact that would inform the Court’s decision. The fact of the matter is that the six lis pendens were illegally filed by Plaintiffs. There is no discoverable fact that would or could change things. The untimely, improper, and futile request for discovery should be denied. C. The Court should not entertain additional briefing because Plaintiffs had nearly three weeks to file a response, but chose to file an untimely response less than one business day before the hearing. Again, as a threshold matter, the Court should not entertain additional briefing. The time to brief was in the weeks between the time Value Growth filed its Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens and the hearing held this morning. Indeed, Plaintiffs M file an untimely response less than one business day before the hearing. In any event, such an effort would be futile because no amount of briefing can fix the incurable defects with the six illegal lis pendens. Plaintiffs allude to paragraphs 13-15, l8, 20, 27, and 54 as supposedly establishing claims against real property. Nonsense. The Court knows what the claims are and what the relief sought is: G. Saranu Value Remedy Growth Count 1: X “unliquidated and exemplary Common-law damages” (1} 34) fraud (1W 29-35) Count 2: statutory X “unliquidated damages” (1} 42) fraud (1W 36-42) Count 3: Breach X “unliquidated and exemplary of contract (1H 43- damages” (1] 49) 49) Count 4: Breach f “exemplary damages” (1] 56) fiduciary duty(1HI 50-55) Count 5: “obtain a constructive trust. . .for Constructive trust any benefit or unjust enrichment (1H 29-34) they may have received from real money or real property transfers” (1} 58) “(i) any and all actual damages; accounting and records; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; exemplary damages; attorney fees; any and all cost of the court” (p.10) Plaintiffs cannot mutate the plain meaning of its claims t0 escape the fact that it filed six illegal lis pendens and now must answer for its improper resort to self—help. The referenced affidavits are equally useless to the Court’s analysis. The affidavits do not claim an interest in any property, do not seek to recover real property, and do not allege damages based on the deprivation of real property. Again, the affidavits concern themselves with money damages. In any event, Plaintiffs had ample opportunity to present any evidence they chose to the Court and did not do so. Thus, even if the affidavits contained helpful information, and they do not as a matter of law, Plaintiffs waived their right to present the evidence through their own lack of diligence. CONCLUSION We urge the Court to follow the clear standards set forth under the Texas Property Code and directions of the Dallas Court of Appeals and grant the Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens. Respectfully submitted, flmfllfiwfldp Gregory A. Brassfield Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Envelope ID: 66949941 Status as of 8/4/2022 8:37 AM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Michael S.Gardner mg@gardnerhaas.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT Mariela Cawthon mcawthon@lynnllp.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT Jeremy Camp jc@gardnerhaas.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT Ricardo Guerra 24074331 service@guerradays.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT John D.Volney jvolney@lynnllp.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT April Kimrey akimrey@lynnllp.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT Gloria Hernandez ghernandez@lynnllp.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT Sergio Castillo 24126757 sergio@guerradays.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT Alex Cleeter ac@gardnerhaas.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT Cory C.Johnson cjohnson@lynnllp.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT Pamela Oakley poakley@lynnllp.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT Greg Brassfield gbrassfield@lynnllp.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT Shannon Webb admin@gardnerhaas.com 8/3/2022 6:07:54 PM SENT