Preview
CAUSE NO. 20-03-04145
ROBERT SULZBACH, AND SANDRA IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
“SANDY” SULZBACH,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JAMERA CUSTOM HOMES, INC., AND
STRUCSURE HOME WARRANTY, LLC,
Defendants,
vs.
457TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
JAMERA CUSTOM HOMES, INC.
Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff,
vs.
CONRADO RAMIREZ; J. DOMINGO
LOPEZ; JRI AIR INSTALL; GERADO
LOPEZ; JOEL VILLARREAL; JOSE J.
GARCIA; JOSE LORETO HUERTA;
ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ; EL TIGRE
CARPET, MACARIO de LEON, and
METRO LIVING STUDIOS,
Third Party Defendants. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT/THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFF JAMERA CUSTOM HOMES, INC.’S
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT:
COMES NOW, Jamera Custom Homes, Inc., Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff herein,
and files this Emergency Motion for Protective Order in the above entitled and numbered cause
and would show the following:
EFENDANT HIRD ARTY LAINTIFF AMERA USTOM OMES
MERGENCY OTION FOR ROTECTIVE RDER PAGE OF7
INTRODUCTION
This matter arises out of a contract for construction of a single family residence entered
June 14, 2018, between Plaintiffs Robert Sulzbach and Sandra “Sandy” Sulzbach
(hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs” and/or “Sulzbachs”) and Defendant/Third
Party Plaintiff Jamera Custom Homes, Inc. (hereinafter “Movant” and/or “Jamera”) located at
27684 Rio Blanco Dr., Splendora, Texas 77372 (hereinafter referred to as “Subject Property”).
Movant has been forced to file this Emergency Motion for Protective Order (“Motion”)
as a result of Plaintiffs’ lagrant violation of the deadlines set forth in th Discovery Control
Order (“DCO”) controlling this case. Plaintiff ave served written discovery, an amended
expert designation , and fil amended pleadings all after the specific DCO deadlines and
without obtaining leave of Court. Movant did not agree to continue all of the discovery
deadlines
Movant is filing separate motions to strike the newly filed petition and expert
designation, but herein seeks to obtain both a protective order from this Court quashing
Plaintiffs’ untimely written discovery to Movant, and an order enforcing all discovery deadlines
set forth in this Court’s Docket Control Order to avoid any further attempts to expand the claims
in this matter that has trialpending in just over two months.
BACKGROUND FACTS
This case is currently set for trial on November 7, 2022.
Ex. A Docket Control Order
Ex.B Plaintiffs’ Amended Expert Designation for Trial
Ex.C Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Original Petition
Ex. Email dated: August 11, 2022/proposed Motion for New Trial
EFENDANT HIRD ARTY LAINTIFF AMERA USTOM OMES
MERGENCY OTION FOR ROTECTIVE RDER AGE OF
Plaintiffs filed their Original Petition in this case two and half years ago on March 27,
The pre trial deadlines in this case are governed by the Docket Control Order entered on
February 23, 2022
According to the controlling Docket Control Order, “all written discovery responses must
be due” on or before August 9, 2022
On July 28 , 2022, Movant completed the deposition of Plaintiff Sandra Sulzbach.
On July 29 , 2022, Movant completed the deposition of Plaintiff, and Plaintiffs’ Appraisal
Expert, Robert Sulzbach.
On August 9, 2022, Movant completed the deposition of Plaintiffs’ roofing expert, Robert
Dushek.
On August 3, 2022, six days before the discovery cut off in this case, Plaintiffs’ counsel
served Plaintiffs’ Second Interrogatories, Third Requests for Production, and Second Request for
Admission to Movant. Then, on August 10, 2022, one day after the discovery cut off in this case,
Plaintiffs served their 6 Amended Response to Request for Disclosures collectively, “Plaintiffs”
Untimely Discovery’’)
Plaintiffs’ Untimely Discovery seeks new information and documents, adds additional
legal theories, changes and adds new information to their damages model, adds new areas of
testimony for all three of their experts, including a new basis for their appraisal expert’s opinions,
and new opinions by their mold expert. All of this after Movant ha_completed most all of the
percipient and expert witness depositions, including both Plaintiffs
See Exhibit A .
See Exhibit A.
Exhibits Plaintiffs’ Untimely Discovery Requests
EFENDANT HIRD ARTY LAINTIFF AMERA USTOM OMES
MERGENCY OTION FOR ROTECTIVE RDER AGE OF
Plaintiffs are attempting to recreate their case with just over two months left before trial.
Plaintiffs are attempting to have a trial by ambush using unsupported allegations and giving
Movant no time to prepare its defenses. Plaintiffs’ counsel should know betterand should be held
the deadlines set forth in the Court’s DCO.
Plaintiff may argue the discovery is necessary since the Subject Property was sold in
foreclosure, but Plaintiffs have had plenty of time to conduct their discovery prior to, and after
theforeclosure sale on January 4, 2022.
Even if the discovery had been timely served, Movant would still have filed a protective
order barring the Plaintiffs’ discovery since it has no evidentiary basis. The fact that the new
discovery lacks any support whatsoever is clearly the reason Plaintiffs served the late discovery
which is nothing more than a fishing expedition.
Movant proposed a trial continuance to allow the parties to complete depositions through
its proposed draft Motion to Continue Trial sent to Plaintiffs’ counsel as an attachment to an email
dated August 11, 2022. Therein, Movant expressly requested that no other discovery deadlines
that have passedshould be continued.
The same day, on August 11, 2022, the Plaintiff sent an email responding to Movant draft
Motion to Continue Trial refusing to agree to rial continuance without continuing all discovery
deadlines. Plaintiffs’ counsel demands in his email that, “If a continuance is granted all deadlines
should be extended to allow the third party defendants to conduct discovery... ” and that
Plaintiffs “... may also need to get new experts ‘0 Movant did not agree to Plaintiff's request
to reopen discovery and did not file the Motion to Continue Trial.
Ex. Movant’s Email to Plaintiff dated August 11, 2022, with proposed Motion for New Trial attached, at p. 10;
916
& 17
Id.
Ex. Plaintiffs’ Email response to Movant dated August 11, 2022, at p. 1, § 3.
EFENDANT HIRD ARTY LAINTIFF AMERA USTOM OMES
MERGENCY OTION FOR ROTECTIVE RDER AGE OF
rial in this case is just over two months away. Movant hereby requests that this Court
issue a protective order in this case quashing Plaintiffs’ Untimely Discovery and barring Plaintiffs”
counsel from conducting any further discovery in this case.
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
Plaintiffs’ New Discovery is Untimely, and Movants are entitled to a Protective
Order
Under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, all parties are required to serve any discovery
requests “no later than 30 days before the end of the discovery period.”!! The Docket Control
Order issued by this Court on February 23, 2022, paragraph 3, reiterates this Rule, adding that
“’.. all responses and supplements must be completed...” 90 days before trial (August 9 as
follows!”
3. DISCOVERY RESPONS! 90 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL
By no later than this da written discovery responses must be due, all responses and supplements must be
completed, and all depositions must be completed, read, and signed.
In this case, Plaintiffs and/or their counsel have engaged in flagrant abuses of the
discovery process in this case. Plaintiffs’ claims in this lawsuit pertain to allegations of
construction defects in the Subject Property. In their Petition the Plaintiff assert that they were
ware of these alleged defects since at least October of 20191, giving Plaintiffs more than two
years to inspect the Subject Property and investigate their allegations prior to foreclosure in
January of 2022
Trial in this case is currently set for November 7, 2022. Therefore, the deadline for all
discovery responses to be due pursuant to the Docket Control Order and Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure expired on August 9, 2022. Pursuant to Rules 199.1, 197.1, and 198.1, this provision
Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.1 (requests for Production ; 197.1 (Interrogatories); 198.1 (Requests for Admission)
See Exhibit A.
See Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition, Exhibit
EFENDANT HIRD ARTY LAINTIFF AMERA USTOM OMES
MERGENCY OTION FOR ROTECTIVE RDER AGE OF
necessarily requires that the deadline for the parties to serve any new discovery was July 11,
2022, absent leave of this Court or other mitigating circumstances which do not exist in this case
Iv.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff Jamera
Custom Homes, Inc. requests the Court grant this Emergency Motion for Protective Order and
enter an order (1) quashing Plaintiffs Untimely Discovery, (2) enforcing the discovery deadlines
set forth in this Court’s Docket Control Order and for all other relief, at law or in equity to
which Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff may show itself to be entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
TARLE LAW, P.C.
Waste Grn
Cynthia Pertile Tarle
State Bar No. 24060908
CPTarle@TarleLaw.com
Nicole Johnson
State Bar No. 24101972
NJohnson@TarleLaw.com
Hellieth Pedroza
State Bar No. 24107891
HPedroza@TarleLaw.com
4040 N. Central Expressway Suite 700
Dallas, Texas 75204
P: 469
F: 469
TTORNEYS FOR EFENDANT HIRD ARTY
LAINTIFF AMERA USTOM OMES
EFENDANT HIRD ARTY LAINTIFF AMERA USTOM OMES
MERGENCY OTION FOR ROTECTIVE RDER AGE OF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing EFENDANT HIRD ARTY
LAINTIFF AMERA USTOM OMES MERGENCY OTION FOR ROTECTIVE RDER has been
served upon all parties or their counsel of record by the method(s) selected below on September
LECTRONIC_ERVICE ROVIDER LECTRONIC_ERVICE ROVIDER
Lawrence Chang Mark Davis
CHOATE & ASSOCIATES Mandy Martin
Westbank Drive, Bldg. #1 Rosa Cortez
Austin, Texas 78746 Leoncio A. Gil, III
P: 512 CRADDOCK DAVIS & KRAUSE LLP
F: 512 3100 Monticello Avenue, Suite 550
Law.chan: ateal Dallas, Texas 75205
TTORNE FOR LA IFFS OBERT ULZBACH P: 214
ULZBACH F: 214
mdavis@cdklawfirm.com
lgil@cdklawfirm.com
cortez@cdklawfirm.com
TTORNEYS FOR EFENDANT
TRUCSURE OME ARRANTY
LECTRONIC_ERVICE ROVIDER LECTRONIC_ERVIC ROVIDER
Bernardo Villarreal Aguirre, Of Counsel Mark Senter
THE IZAGUIRRE LAW FIRM, PLLC Resnick & Louis
10520 Airline #100 2425 N Central #231
Houston, TX 77037 Richardson, Texas 75080
T: 281 P: 972
F: 281 msenter@rlattorneys.com
ivil@izalaw.com berites@rlattorneys.com
TTORNEY
FOR HIRD ARTY EFENDANT mail@rlattorneys.com
ONRADO AMIREZ AND IGRE ARPET TTORNEYS
FOR HIRD ARTY EFENDANT
OEL ILLARREAL DBA OVI RYWALL
LECTRONIC_ERVICE ROVIDER LECTRONIC_ERVICE ROVIDER
MacarioDeLeon Carlos Peniche
18460 Wisp Willow Way SBN 15748300
Porter, TX 77365 6200 Savoy #1202
P: 832 Houston, Texas 77036
Macariodeleon777@yahoo.com P: 713
RO HIRD ARTY EFENDANT arlos@penichelaw.com
TTORNEY
FOR HIRD ARTY EFENDANT OSE
UERTA
Waste dpe
7
NICOLE JOHNSON
EFENDANT HIRD ARTY LAINTIFF AMERA USTOM OMES
MERGENCY OTION FOR ROTECTIVE RDER AGE OF
CAUSE NO. 20-03-04145
ROBERT SULZBACH; SANDY IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SULZBACH
vs. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS
JAMERA CUSTOM HOMES, INC.; 457™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
STRUCSURE HOME WARRANTY, LLC;
CONRADO RAMIREZ; J DOMINGO
LOPEZ; JRI AIR INSTALL; GERADO
LOPEZ; JOEL VILLARREAL; JOSE J
GARCIA; JOSE LORETO HUERTA;
ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ; EL TIGRE
CARPET & RECYCLING; MACARIO DE
LEON; METRO LIVING STUDIO
DOCKET CONTROL ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that this Docket Control Order shall control the disposition of this matter; the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure shall control in computing any period of time not addressed within this Order; and any date that falls on a
weekend or legal holiday (as determined by the Montgomery County Commissioners Court) shall be moved to the first
business day thereafter.
IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PLAINTIFF MUST IMMEDIATELY SEND A COPY OF THIS DOCKET CONTROL
ORDER, BY A METHOD PRESCRIBED BY RULE 2la, TO EACH AND EVERY PARTY ANSWERING OR
OTHERWISE APPEARING IN THIS CASE AFTER THE DATE THIS ORDER IS SIGNED.
PLEADING DEADLINE: 150 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL
All amendments and supplements to pleadings must be filed by this date.
EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATION:
A list shall be filed which includes each expert’s name, address, telephone number, the subject of the testimony,
and the opinions that will be proffered by each expert. Experts not listed in compliance with this paragraph
will not be permitted to testify absent a showing of an exception under Rule 193.6. A Rule 194 disclosure is
not a substitute for this filed designation.
(a) Parties seeking affirmative relief 150 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL
(b) All other parties 120 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL
DISCOVERY RESPONSES: 90 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL
By no later than this date, all written discovery responses must be due, all responses and supplements must be
completed, and all depositions must be completed, read, and signed.
EXPERT CHALLENGE HEARINGS: 75 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL
All challenges to expert witnesses must be set for a hearing to occur by this date. Failure to obtain such a hearing
is a waiver of any Rule 702 objection.
Exhibit A
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS: 30 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL
All such motions shall be set for a submission docket which is no later than this date.
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 30 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL
This e is referred for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) under the Court’s Standing Order on Alternative
Dispute Resolution.
https://www.mctx.org/departments/departments_d_-_f/district_courts/457thdistrict_court.php
ADR shall be completed on or before this date. By Rule 11 agreement filed with the District Clerk, the parties
may agree to an ADR date between this date and the trial date so long as ADR is completed before the trial date.
MOTIONS FOR CONTINUANCE: 15 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL
All motions for continuance of the Trial Date must be filed at least 15 days before the trial date, except in exigent
circumstances, and will be considered by the Court without necessity of submission if they are agreed.
JOINT NOTICE FILING: 14 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL
All parties will file a SINGLE Joint Notice with the Court, answering:
d) Are you ready for trial?
Q) What is the estimated length of time for trial?
G) Do you need a Pre-Trial conference and, if so, why?
- The Court will take up pre-trial motions in the hour prior to trial. You should request a
Pre-Trial conference only if you need more time than that.
(4) Are there any pending motions? If so, what are they and when were they filed?
(5) Have the parties mediated? If so, when? If the parties have not mediated, is there mediation
scheduled prior to trial?
(6) Are there any special needs or accommodations for the presentation of the case, including any
issues related to the availability of counsel and witnesses?
If there is a disagreement among the parties as to any of these six items, the Joint Notice will state the positions of
each of the parties.
ANY PARTY WHO FAILS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DRAFTING PROCESS WILL BE SUBJECT
TO SANCTIONS, INCLUDING DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION AND A FINDING OF
ABANDONMENT OF CLAIMS OR DEFENSES PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 165 AND 165a.
- If any party does not participate with the Joint Notice, the party or parties filing the Joint Notice shall
identify who did not participate.
IF A JOI NOTICE IS NOT TIMELY FILED, THE COURT WILL PRESUME THAT THE PARTIES
HAVE NO FURTHER INTEREST IN PURSUING OR DEFENDING THIS MATTER AND THE
COURT WILL DISPOSE OF THIS SUIT BY DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION AND A
FINDING OF ABANDONMENT OF CLAIMS OR DEFENSES PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE 165 AND 165a.
PRE-TRIAL MATERIALS: 14 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL
By no later than this date, all parties shall exchange with each other and file the following:
a. EXHIBIT LIST. All exhibits to be offered at trial shall be pre-marked and identified by exhibit number
on the list, with exhibits served on other parties, but not filed. Any party requiring authentication of an
exhibit must file and serve notice of same within 7 days after the exhibit is provided; FAILURE TO DO
SO IS AN ADMISSION TO AN EXHIBIT’S AUTHENTICITY. All exhibits which the parties agree to
admit shall be admitted into evidence as a first order of business on the trial date. All Exhibits shall be
digital and provided to the Court Reporter. Each exhibit shall not exceed 100MB. Digital Evidence shall
be labeled with Exhibit Number or Letter without Description.
WITNESS LIST. All witnesses who are anticipated to be called to testify at trial, including all experts
shall be on the Witness List.
DEPOSITION EXCERPTS. All deposition excerpts that may be offered at trial in lieu of live
testimony shall be identified by specific designated pages and line numbers.
MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Motions In Limine should be specific to the case. Please do not duplicate the
items which already appear in the Court’s Standing Order Jn Limine.
JURY CHARGE. If the trial is to a jury, a proposed jury charge shall be both filed and provided via
email to the Court Administrator and Court Coordinator.
FINDING OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. If the trial is to the bench, proposed findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law shall be both filed and provided via email to the Court Administrator and Court
Coordinator.
10. PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE THURSDAY BEFORE TRIAL
The Court will set pre-trial conferences based on the Court’s own motion or on request of the parties. The Court
will notice all Pre-Trial conferences. Only those parties notified by the Court shall appear.
11 TRIAL NOVEMBER 07, 2022
This case is set for TRIAL on a two-week rolling docket beginning at 9:00 a.m. on the above date. If the case is
not assigned by the second Friday following this date, then the case will be reset. You are instructed to monitor
the Court’s website to determine at what date and time you should appear:
https://www.mctx.org/departments/departments_d_-_f/district_courts/457thdistrict_court.php
UNLESS OTHERWISE ORDERED BY THE COURT, THE FOREGOING DATES AS CALCULATED FROM
THE TRIAL DATE STATED HEREIN REMAIN THE APPLICABLE DEADLINES FOR THIS CASE EVEN IF
THE TRIAL DATE IS RESET AND REGARDLESS OF THE REASON FOR ANY RESET.
Signed on this the 23rd day of February, 2022
VINCENZO J. SANPINI, JUDGE PRESIDING
457 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
Sent to: law.chang@choateaustin.com; cptarle@tarlelaw.com; CNorris@TarleLaw.com
NO. 20-03-04145
ROBERT SULZBACH, AND § IN THE 457TH
SANDRA “SANDY” SULZBACH, §
PLAINTIFFS, §
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
JAMERA CUSTOM HOMES, INC.,
DEFENDANT. § OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED EXPERT DESIGNATION FOR TRIAL
aintiffs’ reserve the right to call any of Defendants designated experts at trial. Plaintiffs’
designate the following parties as experts they intend to call at trial:
Lawrence Chang
13010 N US 183 #210
Austin, TX 78750
512-297-9124
Law.Chang@Choateaustin.com
Chang is counsel for Plaintiff . He will testify regarding the reasonable and
necessary attorney’s fees required to litigate against Defendants and that Plaintiffs
are eligible to recover fees under a prevailing party clause in the Parties’ sales
contract for the property.
Chang will also testify as to the reasonable and necessary costs of court, such as
the cost of depositions and expert witnesses, which were incurred during
litigation. Those invoices have been provided through discovery.
At this time, Chang estimates that reasonable fees for litigation, if billed at his
hourly rate of $350, through trial, will be at least $,000.00. This amount will
likely change as the issues and facts in the case vary through discovery and
eventual trial.
Chang has a contingency contract with Plaintiffs, which is common in these
causes of action. Mr. Chang has a 2% contingency fee due as payment, as well
as reimbursement for legal expenses and costs of court, and 3% contingency if
trial is necessary.
Mr. Chang was solely responsible for handling the case, and it caused him to forego
other employment since he has a full docket, and could not have also handled any
work foregone because of time spent on this case.
AGREED ORDER TO ABATE
Exhibit B AGE OF3
Mr. Chang will rely on detailed billing records prepared as a part of his Firm’s
regular course ofbusiness.
Joshua M. Rachel
Texas Mold Inspectors
Josh@Texasmoldinspectors.com
Rachel performed mold testing and created a mold report and mold protocol for
the Property. A copy of his report, and all the pictures and tests that form the
basis of that report, has been provided in discovery. A copy of his CV and
resume can be found at Texasmoldinspectors.com and has been provided in
discovery.
Rachel will testify that Jamera’s removal of mold without a license violated Texas
w. Rachel will provide testimony related to the minimum requirements for
mold assessment and remediation.
Rachel will testify that improper construction, such as inadequate ventilation
caused conditions which created excess moisture to build in the home, leading to
the proliferation of toxic mold. Rachel will also testify that the roof leaks likely
contributed to the presence of toxic mold throughout the property. Rachel will
testify as to the location of mold in the property, the source of mold, and what
needs to be done to remediate the mold. Rachel will provide rebuttal testimony to
Defendant’s experts if necessary.
Robert Dushek
Roofing Expe
38 Green Slope Place
The Woodlands, TX 77381
Rob@NaturalFrequencyllc.com
Mr. Dushek’s report dated March 6, 2020, including his CV, has been provided in
discovery. He will testify that he found inadequate ventilation by design which likely
contributed to moisture building up in the Property He will testify that he found a roof
leak that contributed to the water damage and mold growth in the Property. He will
testify to the other aspects of his report as well and provide rebuttal testimony if
necessary. Please see disclosures for more detailed information on his testimony.
Robert Sulzbach
AGREED ORDER TO ABATE AGE OF
Plaintiff
Expert on Property value
Robert is designated as an expert on the value of the Property, as the owner of the
Property. Robert will testify what the expected rental income would be if there had been
no mold problem and what the expected sales price would be if there was no mold
problem. Robert will use Daniel Smith’s appraisal report provided in discovery as well
as his personal knowledge, which will include a review of the property listings in his area
and rental listings in his area before trial.
espectfully submitted,
Choate & Associates
13010 US 183, Suite #210
Austin, Texas 78750
Law.Chang@choateaustin.com
a ee
Lawrence Chang
State Bar No. 24072892
RTIFICATE OF SERVICE
he undersigned hereby certifies by the signature above that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served to all parties of record on August 10, 2022, via the Courts ECF
system, according to the TX Rules of Civ. Procedure.
GREED ORDER TO ABATE AGE OF3
CAUSE NO. 20-03-04145
ROBERT SULZBACH, AND SANDRA THE 457TH
“SANDY” SULZBACH,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JAMERA CUSTOM HOMES, INC.,
Defendant / Third Party Plaintiff,
VS.
JUDICIALDISTRICT COURT OF
CONRADO RAMIREZ; J. DOMINGO
LOPEZ; JRI AIR INSTALL; GERADO
LOPEZ; JOEL VILLARREAL; JOSE J.
GARCIA; JOSE LORETO HUERTA;
ALEJANDRO | HERNANDEZ;
TIGRE CARPET, MACARIO de LEON, and
METRO LIVING STUDIOS,
Third Party Defendants. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Comes now, Plaintiffs, ROBERT SULZBACH and SANDY SULZBACH hereinafter
“Plaintiffs,” by and through their Attorney of Record, Lawrence Chang, who file this their
Fourth AmendedPetition., and in support thereof respectfully show the Court as follows:
DISCOVERY PLAN
Plaintiffs submit that this matter should be conducted under Discovery Plan Level Threeas
set forth in Rule 190.4 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
PARTIES
bert Sulzbach and Sandra “Sandy” Sulzbachare a married couple o reside in the
State of Arizona and may be contacted through their undersigned attorney.
Exhibit C
Defendant,Jamera Custom Homes, Inc. is a rporation doing business in the State of
Texas who can be served through their registered agent of record, Magda Garza, at 22922
Yukon River Dr., Porter, TX 77365.
The Third Party Defendants were added by Jamera Custom Homes Inc. To the best of
Plaintiffs’ knowledge, the Third Party Defendants reside in the State of Texas.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction as the matter in controversy exceeds this Court’s
minimum jurisdictional limits.
Personal jurisdiction is proper in this matter as the Defendantresides in and transact
business within the State of Texas, and have acquiesced to such jurisdiction.
Venue is mandatory and proper under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code 15.017 as
Montgomery County is the county whereall or a substantial part of the events giving rise
to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred.
IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On or about June 14 , 2018, Claimants entered into contract (the “Contract”) to purchase
the property located at 27684 Rio Blanco Dr., Splendora, TX 77372 (the “Property from
Defendant, Jamera Custom Homes, Inc. (“Jamera”).
Jamera promised a specific floor plan prior to entering into the contract.
On or about July 2, 2018, Jamera informed Claimants realtor that they were not going to
build according to the floor plan selected by Claimants.
Claimant, Robert Sulzbach, is a member of the United States Military who had been
ordered to report to duty in early August, 2018. Claimants were relying on the delivery of
the Property as outlined in the Contract and had planned their living arrangements
accordingly.
Jamera informed Claimants that they had made the decision to build the Property with a
different floor plan beforeClaimants entered into the Contract and that they had no other
option. Claimants were forced, under duress, to proceed under the Contract as they had no
other option available.
Prior to closing, Plaintiffs’ had a pre purchase inspection report doneand Jamera promised
to repair all of the items pointed out in the pre purchase inspection report after closing was
completed. laintiffs relied on this representation when purchasing the operty.
Jamera did not do so.
On or about August 13 , 2018, Claimants purchased the Property from Jamera. As part of
that transaction, Jamera Homes provided Claimants with a ten (10) year home warranty
through Defendant, Strucsure Home Warranty, LLC (‘‘Strucsure”’)and their own two (2)
year Systems Warranty, andone (1) year Workmanship Warranty
Under the warranty, Jamera was responsible for everything covered under the two year and
one year warranty.
On or about August 17, 2019, Claimants notified Jamera of a water leak in the kitchen.
Jamera initially stated that the Workmanship Warranty hadexpired and denied the claim.
Strucsure was also notified. Strucsure informed Jamera Homes that the leak fell under the
Systems Warranty and that Jamera Homes was responsible for fixing it. Jamera agreed.
While fixing the leak, Jamera discovered mold in the Property.
Jamera informed Plaintiffs’ that the mold was not dangerous mold.
Jamera removed some mold and allegedly fixed the leak. Jamera told Plaintiffs’ that the
mold, water damage, and leak had been taken care of.
Claimants hired Texas Mold Inspectors (“TMI”) to check whether or not the mold found in
the Property was hazardous. TMI concluded that the Property contained toxic, deadly
mold, and that it was unfit for human occupancy. That report was shared with Jamera in
October of 2019.
As part of the report, TMI found that the Property likely had inherent construction defects
which was another producing cause of the mold. Those defects included improper attic
ventilation and HVAC installation.
TML also found heavy mold in the master bathroom. TMI suspected foundation issues
were allowing moisture into the Property due to significant cracks near the ceiling present
throughout the Property.
Plaintiffs hired a roof expert who found that the ventilation of the roof was not built to
code, causing humidity to be trapped in the house.
Jamera’s defective construction of the roof, attic, and ventilation systems caused damage to
other property, including the interior andexterior walls of the Property, and Plaintiffs’
personal possessions (clothing, furniture, etc).
Through litigation, Plaintiffs discovered that Jamera only used unlicensed, unqualified
workers to construct the Property.
Through litigation, Plaintiffs discovered that Jamera built the foundation without following
their foundation plans.
Through litigation, Plaintiffs discovered that Jamera did not follow the minimum
requirements of the City of Splendora when building the pad underneath thefoundation o
the Property or when building the foundation of the Property.
Jamera presented a remediation protocol to Claimants that did not address the inherent
construction defects of the Property or the true cause of the mold.
Jamera attempted to take advantage of Plaintiffs’ lack of expertise and knowledge by
trying to get Plaintiffs’ to sign a release which included unconscionable provisions such as
Claimants waiving their rightsunder the warranty
Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Property if they had known Jamera constructed it
with unlicensed employees.
Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Property if they had known Jamera did not intend
to honor their warranties.
Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Property if they had known Jamera didnot build
the Property in a good and workmanlike manner.
Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Property if they had known Jamera did not follow
the minimum code requirements of the City of Splendora.
Plaintiffs would not have entered into contract ifJamera had been truthful about the floor
plan of the Property.
Claimants assert claims for breach of implied warranties, breach of express warranties,
negligence, fraud, statutory fraud and fraudulent inducement, as well as claims under the
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act.
Claimants gave noticeof their claims to Jamera and Strucsureon December 4, 2019.
See Tex. BUS. COM. CODE 17.41 17.63.
Claimants assert claims for negligence, fraud, and fraudulent inducement, as well as claims
under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. (Tex Bus & Comm
Code § 17.41 -17.63.)
CAUSES OF ACTION
Plaintiffs re allege and incorporate by reference all facts and allegations set forth in the
foregoing paragraphs.
Plaintiffs allege the following claims againstJamera:
Violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act
laintiffs hereby invoke the provisions of the Texas Business and Commerce Code
et seq., commonly referred to as the Deceptive Trade Practices - Consumer Protection Act
(hereinafter, “DTPA”).
Plaintiffs ave a cause of action against Jamera under the provision of the DTPA pursuant
to 17.50 (a), which provides remedies for any unconscionable action or course of action
by any person by unreasonable delay, in payment, unreasonable denial of coverage,
misrepresentation of facts; or the breach of an express or implied warranty. Defendants, by
virtue of their conduct as described above, engaged in an unconscionable action or course
of action as that term is defined by the DTPA. Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief set out in
the Act.
Jameraalso has violated various provisions of the Texas Business and Commerce Code
17.46 (b) including but not limited to:
17.46 (b)(13) - Knowingly making false or misleading statements of fact
concerning the need for parts, replacement, or repair service;
See Tex. BUS. COM. CODE § 17.41 17.63.
17.46 (b)(22) - representing that work or services had been performed, when the
work or services were not performed
17.46 (b)(24) — failing to disclose information concerning goods or services which
were known at the time of the transaction if such failure to disclose such
information was intended to induce the consumer into a transaction into which the
consumer would not have entered had the information been disclosed.
Jamera’s assessment and removal of mold without a license was an unconscionable
business practice that violated the DTPA.
Jamera’s use of unqualified workers was an unconscionable business practice that violated
the DTPA.
Jamera intentionally ignoring the minimum construction standards of Splendora Texas was
an unconscionable business practice that violated the DTPA.
Jamera trying to take advantage of Plaintiffs’ by getting them to sign an agreement
waiving their warranty in exchange for Jamera honoring their warranty was an
unconscionable business practice as defined by the DTPA.
The above violations of Texas Business and Commerce Code 17.46 (b) were a producing
cause of Plaintiffs’ damages as hereinafter set forth and were committed knowingly, and
maliciously.
Fraud by Nondisclosure, Fraud in the Inducement and Statutory Fraud
he allegations above are also included in Plaintiffs fraud claims.
Jameramade representations to Plaintiffs which were material and false. When Jamera
made such representations, Jamera knew them to be false, and made the representations
maliciously with knowledge of their falsity. Jameramade these representations to
Plaintiffs with the intent that Plaintiffs act on them. Plaintiffs relied on the false
representations made by Defendants. The representations by Jamerahave caused
Plaintiffs’ damages described herein.
More specifically, Jamera knew that the Property did not fulfill the implied warranty of
habitability or the implied warranty of good workmanship, from the pad underneath the
foundation up.
The actions and omissions of the Jamera constitute common law fraud, fraudulent
inducement, and fraud by nondisclosure, which were the proximate cause of damages
suffered by Plaintiffs, as described further herein.
Plaintiffs’ would not have purchased the Property if Jamera had disclosed their full
knowledge of the Property and its construction.
Breach of Express and Implied Warranty
Jamera failed to provide a habitable home that complies with the code requirements of the
State of Texas.
Jamera failed to provide a home according to the implied warranties of good workmanship
and habitability.
Jamera violated the express warranty they provided to Plaintiffs at closing by refusing to
properly assess and remediate the property of mold and by refusing to perform the other
repairs necessary to prevent the mold from coming back.
amera violated their express warra ies by refusing to repair the construction defects in
the Property.
amera failure to deliver honor their warranties was a proximate cause of the damages of
which Plaintiffs complain.
Negligence/ Gross Negligence
Jamera negligent, at best, when constructing the Property.
Jamerawere ne gligent, at best, in their advertising.
Jamera knew or should have known that using unlicensed workers, and not using the
proper engineers or licensed contractors, could lead to the damages of which Plaintiffs
complain.
Jamera’s negligence was a proximate cause of the Plaintiffs damages as described herein.
VI. DAMAGES
As a consequence of Defendants’ wrongful acts described above, Plaintiff s have suffered
actual and consequential damages. Plaintiffs seek general and special damagesPlaintiff s
request and are entitled to costs of Court, and pre- and post- judgment interest at the
maximum rate agreed to by the parties or permittedby law, pursuant to Texas law.
Plaintiffs plead exemplary damages, including damages for mental distress and anguish, on
all causes of action. Defendants committed the aforementioned acts with the kind of
willfulness, wantonness, and/or malicious intent for which the law allows the imposition of
exemplary damages.
laintiffsestimate the cost of remediating the P roperty to be over $300,000.00.
Remediating the Property is the appropriate remedy as it will put Plaintiffs in the position
they would have been if not for the Defendants wrongful acts.
In the alternative to the cost of remediation, Defendants owe Plaintiffs the money they lost
when the Property was foreclosed. The Property was purchased through foreclosure for
$312,245.75. The Property is appraised to be worth $455,000.
Due to the presence of toxic mold, Defendant owes Plaintiffs the cost of relocationbefore
they moved out of State. After that time, Defendants owe Plaintiffs for potential rent they
lost since they could not lease the Property due to the presence of toxic mold.
Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs for the value of the furniture and belongings in th
Property that were lost to toxic mold exposure.
Defendants owe Plaintiffs’ the income they would have received if they had been able to
rent out the Property since the date they moved out.
Defendants deceptive trade practice and fraud led to the proliferation of toxic mold in the
Property, which may have caused long term personal injury to Plaintiffs.Defendants are
liable for past and future medical expenses to treat the symptoms of toxic mold exposure,
as well as for pain and suffering and mental anguish.
VIL. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT AND RULE 47 STATEMENT
All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been performed, have occurred or
been waived. Pursuant to Rule 47 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs state
they seek monetary relief over $1,000,000.
Vil. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiffs request that Defendants disclose,
within 30 days of the service of this request, the information or material described in Rule
194.2, subsections (a) — (1) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
IX. JURY REQUEST
Pursuant to Rule 216 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs request a trial by
jury and will tender the appropriate fee.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE,PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff pray s that Defendants be cited to appear
and answer herein and that, upon trial, Plaintiffs receive Judgment as follows:
Actual and economic damages, including but not limited to the costs of repair, value
of the personal property lost to toxic mold exposure, loss of value at foreclosure, the
value of damage to Plaintiffs credit, and the value of the loss of Plaintiffs’ ability to
use a VA loan to purchase another property.
b) Additional damages as provided by the DTPA:
Costs of suit, including reasonable legal expenses;
Reasonable and necessary attorney fees, as provided by the DTPA and the Civil
Practice and Remedies Code;
Pre- and post- judgment interest at the maximum rate provided by law;
Exemplary Damages;
Post-judgment discovery and collection in the event execution on the judgment is
necessary; and
Any and all other relief the Court deems appropriate in an amount within the
jurisdicti
Preview
CAUSE NO. 20-03-04145 ROBERT SULZBACH, AND SANDRA IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF “SANDY” SULZBACH, Plaintiffs, vs. JAMERA CUSTOM HOMES, INC., AND STRUCSURE HOME WARRANTY, LLC, Defendants, vs. 457TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT JAMERA CUSTOM HOMES, INC. Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, vs. CONRADO RAMIREZ; J. DOMINGO LOPEZ; JRI AIR INSTALL; GERADO LOPEZ; JOEL VILLARREAL; JOSE J. GARCIA; JOSE LORETO HUERTA; ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ; EL TIGRE CARPET, MACARIO de LEON, and METRO LIVING STUDIOS, Third Party Defendants. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT/THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFF JAMERA CUSTOM HOMES, INC.’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT: COMES NOW, Jamera Custom Homes, Inc., Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff herein, and files this Emergency Motion for Protective Order in the above entitled and numbered cause and would show the following: EFENDANT HIRD ARTY LAINTIFF AMERA USTOM OMES MERGENCY OTION FOR ROTECTIVE RDER PAGE OF7 INTRODUCTION This matter arises out of a contract for construction of a single family residence entered June 14, 2018, between Plaintiffs Robert Sulzbach and Sandra “Sandy” Sulzbach (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs” and/or “Sulzbachs”) and Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff Jamera Custom Homes, Inc. (hereinafter “Movant” and/or “Jamera”) located at 27684 Rio Blanco Dr., Splendora, Texas 77372 (hereinafter referred to as “Subject Property”). Movant has been forced to file this Emergency Motion for Protective Order (“Motion”) as a result of Plaintiffs’ lagrant violation of the deadlines set forth in th Discovery Control Order (“DCO”) controlling this case. Plaintiff ave served written discovery, an amended expert designation , and fil amended pleadings all after the specific DCO deadlines and without obtaining leave of Court. Movant did not agree to continue all of the discovery deadlines Movant is filing separate motions to strike the newly filed petition and expert designation, but herein seeks to obtain both a protective order from this Court quashing Plaintiffs’ untimely written discovery to Movant, and an order enforcing all discovery deadlines set forth in this Court’s Docket Control Order to avoid any further attempts to expand the claims in this matter that has trialpending in just over two months. BACKGROUND FACTS This case is currently set for trial on November 7, 2022. Ex. A Docket Control Order Ex.B Plaintiffs’ Amended Expert Designation for Trial Ex.C Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Original Petition Ex. Email dated: August 11, 2022/proposed Motion for New Trial EFENDANT HIRD ARTY LAINTIFF AMERA USTOM OMES MERGENCY OTION FOR ROTECTIVE RDER AGE OF Plaintiffs filed their Original Petition in this case two and half years ago on March 27, The pre trial deadlines in this case are governed by the Docket Control Order entered on February 23, 2022 According to the controlling Docket Control Order, “all written discovery responses must be due” on or before August 9, 2022 On July 28 , 2022, Movant completed the deposition of Plaintiff Sandra Sulzbach. On July 29 , 2022, Movant completed the deposition of Plaintiff, and Plaintiffs’ Appraisal Expert, Robert Sulzbach. On August 9, 2022, Movant completed the deposition of Plaintiffs’ roofing expert, Robert Dushek. On August 3, 2022, six days before the discovery cut off in this case, Plaintiffs’ counsel served Plaintiffs’ Second Interrogatories, Third Requests for Production, and Second Request for Admission to Movant. Then, on August 10, 2022, one day after the discovery cut off in this case, Plaintiffs served their 6 Amended Response to Request for Disclosures collectively, “Plaintiffs” Untimely Discovery’’) Plaintiffs’ Untimely Discovery seeks new information and documents, adds additional legal theories, changes and adds new information to their damages model, adds new areas of testimony for all three of their experts, including a new basis for their appraisal expert’s opinions, and new opinions by their mold expert. All of this after Movant ha_completed most all of the percipient and expert witness depositions, including both Plaintiffs See Exhibit A . See Exhibit A. Exhibits Plaintiffs’ Untimely Discovery Requests EFENDANT HIRD ARTY LAINTIFF AMERA USTOM OMES MERGENCY OTION FOR ROTECTIVE RDER AGE OF Plaintiffs are attempting to recreate their case with just over two months left before trial. Plaintiffs are attempting to have a trial by ambush using unsupported allegations and giving Movant no time to prepare its defenses. Plaintiffs’ counsel should know betterand should be held the deadlines set forth in the Court’s DCO. Plaintiff may argue the discovery is necessary since the Subject Property was sold in foreclosure, but Plaintiffs have had plenty of time to conduct their discovery prior to, and after theforeclosure sale on January 4, 2022. Even if the discovery had been timely served, Movant would still have filed a protective order barring the Plaintiffs’ discovery since it has no evidentiary basis. The fact that the new discovery lacks any support whatsoever is clearly the reason Plaintiffs served the late discovery which is nothing more than a fishing expedition. Movant proposed a trial continuance to allow the parties to complete depositions through its proposed draft Motion to Continue Trial sent to Plaintiffs’ counsel as an attachment to an email dated August 11, 2022. Therein, Movant expressly requested that no other discovery deadlines that have passedshould be continued. The same day, on August 11, 2022, the Plaintiff sent an email responding to Movant draft Motion to Continue Trial refusing to agree to rial continuance without continuing all discovery deadlines. Plaintiffs’ counsel demands in his email that, “If a continuance is granted all deadlines should be extended to allow the third party defendants to conduct discovery... ” and that Plaintiffs “... may also need to get new experts ‘0 Movant did not agree to Plaintiff's request to reopen discovery and did not file the Motion to Continue Trial. Ex. Movant’s Email to Plaintiff dated August 11, 2022, with proposed Motion for New Trial attached, at p. 10; 916 & 17 Id. Ex. Plaintiffs’ Email response to Movant dated August 11, 2022, at p. 1, § 3. EFENDANT HIRD ARTY LAINTIFF AMERA USTOM OMES MERGENCY OTION FOR ROTECTIVE RDER AGE OF rial in this case is just over two months away. Movant hereby requests that this Court issue a protective order in this case quashing Plaintiffs’ Untimely Discovery and barring Plaintiffs” counsel from conducting any further discovery in this case. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES Plaintiffs’ New Discovery is Untimely, and Movants are entitled to a Protective Order Under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, all parties are required to serve any discovery requests “no later than 30 days before the end of the discovery period.”!! The Docket Control Order issued by this Court on February 23, 2022, paragraph 3, reiterates this Rule, adding that “’.. all responses and supplements must be completed...” 90 days before trial (August 9 as follows!” 3. DISCOVERY RESPONS! 90 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL By no later than this da written discovery responses must be due, all responses and supplements must be completed, and all depositions must be completed, read, and signed. In this case, Plaintiffs and/or their counsel have engaged in flagrant abuses of the discovery process in this case. Plaintiffs’ claims in this lawsuit pertain to allegations of construction defects in the Subject Property. In their Petition the Plaintiff assert that they were ware of these alleged defects since at least October of 20191, giving Plaintiffs more than two years to inspect the Subject Property and investigate their allegations prior to foreclosure in January of 2022 Trial in this case is currently set for November 7, 2022. Therefore, the deadline for all discovery responses to be due pursuant to the Docket Control Order and Texas Rules of Civil Procedure expired on August 9, 2022. Pursuant to Rules 199.1, 197.1, and 198.1, this provision Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.1 (requests for Production ; 197.1 (Interrogatories); 198.1 (Requests for Admission) See Exhibit A. See Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Petition, Exhibit EFENDANT HIRD ARTY LAINTIFF AMERA USTOM OMES MERGENCY OTION FOR ROTECTIVE RDER AGE OF necessarily requires that the deadline for the parties to serve any new discovery was July 11, 2022, absent leave of this Court or other mitigating circumstances which do not exist in this case Iv. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff Jamera Custom Homes, Inc. requests the Court grant this Emergency Motion for Protective Order and enter an order (1) quashing Plaintiffs Untimely Discovery, (2) enforcing the discovery deadlines set forth in this Court’s Docket Control Order and for all other relief, at law or in equity to which Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff may show itself to be entitled. Respectfully submitted, TARLE LAW, P.C. Waste Grn Cynthia Pertile Tarle State Bar No. 24060908 CPTarle@TarleLaw.com Nicole Johnson State Bar No. 24101972 NJohnson@TarleLaw.com Hellieth Pedroza State Bar No. 24107891 HPedroza@TarleLaw.com 4040 N. Central Expressway Suite 700 Dallas, Texas 75204 P: 469 F: 469 TTORNEYS FOR EFENDANT HIRD ARTY LAINTIFF AMERA USTOM OMES EFENDANT HIRD ARTY LAINTIFF AMERA USTOM OMES MERGENCY OTION FOR ROTECTIVE RDER AGE OF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing EFENDANT HIRD ARTY LAINTIFF AMERA USTOM OMES MERGENCY OTION FOR ROTECTIVE RDER has been served upon all parties or their counsel of record by the method(s) selected below on September LECTRONIC_ERVICE ROVIDER LECTRONIC_ERVICE ROVIDER Lawrence Chang Mark Davis CHOATE & ASSOCIATES Mandy Martin Westbank Drive, Bldg. #1 Rosa Cortez Austin, Texas 78746 Leoncio A. Gil, III P: 512 CRADDOCK DAVIS & KRAUSE LLP F: 512 3100 Monticello Avenue, Suite 550 Law.chan: ateal Dallas, Texas 75205 TTORNE FOR LA IFFS OBERT ULZBACH P: 214 ULZBACH F: 214 mdavis@cdklawfirm.com lgil@cdklawfirm.com cortez@cdklawfirm.com TTORNEYS FOR EFENDANT TRUCSURE OME ARRANTY LECTRONIC_ERVICE ROVIDER LECTRONIC_ERVIC ROVIDER Bernardo Villarreal Aguirre, Of Counsel Mark Senter THE IZAGUIRRE LAW FIRM, PLLC Resnick & Louis 10520 Airline #100 2425 N Central #231 Houston, TX 77037 Richardson, Texas 75080 T: 281 P: 972 F: 281 msenter@rlattorneys.com ivil@izalaw.com berites@rlattorneys.com TTORNEY FOR HIRD ARTY EFENDANT mail@rlattorneys.com ONRADO AMIREZ AND IGRE ARPET TTORNEYS FOR HIRD ARTY EFENDANT OEL ILLARREAL DBA OVI RYWALL LECTRONIC_ERVICE ROVIDER LECTRONIC_ERVICE ROVIDER MacarioDeLeon Carlos Peniche 18460 Wisp Willow Way SBN 15748300 Porter, TX 77365 6200 Savoy #1202 P: 832 Houston, Texas 77036 Macariodeleon777@yahoo.com P: 713 RO HIRD ARTY EFENDANT arlos@penichelaw.com TTORNEY FOR HIRD ARTY EFENDANT OSE UERTA Waste dpe 7 NICOLE JOHNSON EFENDANT HIRD ARTY LAINTIFF AMERA USTOM OMES MERGENCY OTION FOR ROTECTIVE RDER AGE OF CAUSE NO. 20-03-04145 ROBERT SULZBACH; SANDY IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SULZBACH vs. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS JAMERA CUSTOM HOMES, INC.; 457™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT STRUCSURE HOME WARRANTY, LLC; CONRADO RAMIREZ; J DOMINGO LOPEZ; JRI AIR INSTALL; GERADO LOPEZ; JOEL VILLARREAL; JOSE J GARCIA; JOSE LORETO HUERTA; ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ; EL TIGRE CARPET & RECYCLING; MACARIO DE LEON; METRO LIVING STUDIO DOCKET CONTROL ORDER IT IS ORDERED that this Docket Control Order shall control the disposition of this matter; the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure shall control in computing any period of time not addressed within this Order; and any date that falls on a weekend or legal holiday (as determined by the Montgomery County Commissioners Court) shall be moved to the first business day thereafter. IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PLAINTIFF MUST IMMEDIATELY SEND A COPY OF THIS DOCKET CONTROL ORDER, BY A METHOD PRESCRIBED BY RULE 2la, TO EACH AND EVERY PARTY ANSWERING OR OTHERWISE APPEARING IN THIS CASE AFTER THE DATE THIS ORDER IS SIGNED. PLEADING DEADLINE: 150 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL All amendments and supplements to pleadings must be filed by this date. EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATION: A list shall be filed which includes each expert’s name, address, telephone number, the subject of the testimony, and the opinions that will be proffered by each expert. Experts not listed in compliance with this paragraph will not be permitted to testify absent a showing of an exception under Rule 193.6. A Rule 194 disclosure is not a substitute for this filed designation. (a) Parties seeking affirmative relief 150 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL (b) All other parties 120 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL DISCOVERY RESPONSES: 90 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL By no later than this date, all written discovery responses must be due, all responses and supplements must be completed, and all depositions must be completed, read, and signed. EXPERT CHALLENGE HEARINGS: 75 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL All challenges to expert witnesses must be set for a hearing to occur by this date. Failure to obtain such a hearing is a waiver of any Rule 702 objection. Exhibit A SUMMARY JUDGMENTS: 30 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL All such motions shall be set for a submission docket which is no later than this date. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 30 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL This e is referred for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) under the Court’s Standing Order on Alternative Dispute Resolution. https://www.mctx.org/departments/departments_d_-_f/district_courts/457thdistrict_court.php ADR shall be completed on or before this date. By Rule 11 agreement filed with the District Clerk, the parties may agree to an ADR date between this date and the trial date so long as ADR is completed before the trial date. MOTIONS FOR CONTINUANCE: 15 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL All motions for continuance of the Trial Date must be filed at least 15 days before the trial date, except in exigent circumstances, and will be considered by the Court without necessity of submission if they are agreed. JOINT NOTICE FILING: 14 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL All parties will file a SINGLE Joint Notice with the Court, answering: d) Are you ready for trial? Q) What is the estimated length of time for trial? G) Do you need a Pre-Trial conference and, if so, why? - The Court will take up pre-trial motions in the hour prior to trial. You should request a Pre-Trial conference only if you need more time than that. (4) Are there any pending motions? If so, what are they and when were they filed? (5) Have the parties mediated? If so, when? If the parties have not mediated, is there mediation scheduled prior to trial? (6) Are there any special needs or accommodations for the presentation of the case, including any issues related to the availability of counsel and witnesses? If there is a disagreement among the parties as to any of these six items, the Joint Notice will state the positions of each of the parties. ANY PARTY WHO FAILS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DRAFTING PROCESS WILL BE SUBJECT TO SANCTIONS, INCLUDING DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION AND A FINDING OF ABANDONMENT OF CLAIMS OR DEFENSES PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 165 AND 165a. - If any party does not participate with the Joint Notice, the party or parties filing the Joint Notice shall identify who did not participate. IF A JOI NOTICE IS NOT TIMELY FILED, THE COURT WILL PRESUME THAT THE PARTIES HAVE NO FURTHER INTEREST IN PURSUING OR DEFENDING THIS MATTER AND THE COURT WILL DISPOSE OF THIS SUIT BY DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION AND A FINDING OF ABANDONMENT OF CLAIMS OR DEFENSES PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 165 AND 165a. PRE-TRIAL MATERIALS: 14 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL By no later than this date, all parties shall exchange with each other and file the following: a. EXHIBIT LIST. All exhibits to be offered at trial shall be pre-marked and identified by exhibit number on the list, with exhibits served on other parties, but not filed. Any party requiring authentication of an exhibit must file and serve notice of same within 7 days after the exhibit is provided; FAILURE TO DO SO IS AN ADMISSION TO AN EXHIBIT’S AUTHENTICITY. All exhibits which the parties agree to admit shall be admitted into evidence as a first order of business on the trial date. All Exhibits shall be digital and provided to the Court Reporter. Each exhibit shall not exceed 100MB. Digital Evidence shall be labeled with Exhibit Number or Letter without Description. WITNESS LIST. All witnesses who are anticipated to be called to testify at trial, including all experts shall be on the Witness List. DEPOSITION EXCERPTS. All deposition excerpts that may be offered at trial in lieu of live testimony shall be identified by specific designated pages and line numbers. MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Motions In Limine should be specific to the case. Please do not duplicate the items which already appear in the Court’s Standing Order Jn Limine. JURY CHARGE. If the trial is to a jury, a proposed jury charge shall be both filed and provided via email to the Court Administrator and Court Coordinator. FINDING OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. If the trial is to the bench, proposed findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law shall be both filed and provided via email to the Court Administrator and Court Coordinator. 10. PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE THURSDAY BEFORE TRIAL The Court will set pre-trial conferences based on the Court’s own motion or on request of the parties. The Court will notice all Pre-Trial conferences. Only those parties notified by the Court shall appear. 11 TRIAL NOVEMBER 07, 2022 This case is set for TRIAL on a two-week rolling docket beginning at 9:00 a.m. on the above date. If the case is not assigned by the second Friday following this date, then the case will be reset. You are instructed to monitor the Court’s website to determine at what date and time you should appear: https://www.mctx.org/departments/departments_d_-_f/district_courts/457thdistrict_court.php UNLESS OTHERWISE ORDERED BY THE COURT, THE FOREGOING DATES AS CALCULATED FROM THE TRIAL DATE STATED HEREIN REMAIN THE APPLICABLE DEADLINES FOR THIS CASE EVEN IF THE TRIAL DATE IS RESET AND REGARDLESS OF THE REASON FOR ANY RESET. Signed on this the 23rd day of February, 2022 VINCENZO J. SANPINI, JUDGE PRESIDING 457 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT Sent to: law.chang@choateaustin.com; cptarle@tarlelaw.com; CNorris@TarleLaw.com NO. 20-03-04145 ROBERT SULZBACH, AND § IN THE 457TH SANDRA “SANDY” SULZBACH, § PLAINTIFFS, § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT JAMERA CUSTOM HOMES, INC., DEFENDANT. § OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED EXPERT DESIGNATION FOR TRIAL aintiffs’ reserve the right to call any of Defendants designated experts at trial. Plaintiffs’ designate the following parties as experts they intend to call at trial: Lawrence Chang 13010 N US 183 #210 Austin, TX 78750 512-297-9124 Law.Chang@Choateaustin.com Chang is counsel for Plaintiff . He will testify regarding the reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees required to litigate against Defendants and that Plaintiffs are eligible to recover fees under a prevailing party clause in the Parties’ sales contract for the property. Chang will also testify as to the reasonable and necessary costs of court, such as the cost of depositions and expert witnesses, which were incurred during litigation. Those invoices have been provided through discovery. At this time, Chang estimates that reasonable fees for litigation, if billed at his hourly rate of $350, through trial, will be at least $,000.00. This amount will likely change as the issues and facts in the case vary through discovery and eventual trial. Chang has a contingency contract with Plaintiffs, which is common in these causes of action. Mr. Chang has a 2% contingency fee due as payment, as well as reimbursement for legal expenses and costs of court, and 3% contingency if trial is necessary. Mr. Chang was solely responsible for handling the case, and it caused him to forego other employment since he has a full docket, and could not have also handled any work foregone because of time spent on this case. AGREED ORDER TO ABATE Exhibit B AGE OF3 Mr. Chang will rely on detailed billing records prepared as a part of his Firm’s regular course ofbusiness. Joshua M. Rachel Texas Mold Inspectors Josh@Texasmoldinspectors.com Rachel performed mold testing and created a mold report and mold protocol for the Property. A copy of his report, and all the pictures and tests that form the basis of that report, has been provided in discovery. A copy of his CV and resume can be found at Texasmoldinspectors.com and has been provided in discovery. Rachel will testify that Jamera’s removal of mold without a license violated Texas w. Rachel will provide testimony related to the minimum requirements for mold assessment and remediation. Rachel will testify that improper construction, such as inadequate ventilation caused conditions which created excess moisture to build in the home, leading to the proliferation of toxic mold. Rachel will also testify that the roof leaks likely contributed to the presence of toxic mold throughout the property. Rachel will testify as to the location of mold in the property, the source of mold, and what needs to be done to remediate the mold. Rachel will provide rebuttal testimony to Defendant’s experts if necessary. Robert Dushek Roofing Expe 38 Green Slope Place The Woodlands, TX 77381 Rob@NaturalFrequencyllc.com Mr. Dushek’s report dated March 6, 2020, including his CV, has been provided in discovery. He will testify that he found inadequate ventilation by design which likely contributed to moisture building up in the Property He will testify that he found a roof leak that contributed to the water damage and mold growth in the Property. He will testify to the other aspects of his report as well and provide rebuttal testimony if necessary. Please see disclosures for more detailed information on his testimony. Robert Sulzbach AGREED ORDER TO ABATE AGE OF Plaintiff Expert on Property value Robert is designated as an expert on the value of the Property, as the owner of the Property. Robert will testify what the expected rental income would be if there had been no mold problem and what the expected sales price would be if there was no mold problem. Robert will use Daniel Smith’s appraisal report provided in discovery as well as his personal knowledge, which will include a review of the property listings in his area and rental listings in his area before trial. espectfully submitted, Choate & Associates 13010 US 183, Suite #210 Austin, Texas 78750 Law.Chang@choateaustin.com a ee Lawrence Chang State Bar No. 24072892 RTIFICATE OF SERVICE he undersigned hereby certifies by the signature above that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served to all parties of record on August 10, 2022, via the Courts ECF system, according to the TX Rules of Civ. Procedure. GREED ORDER TO ABATE AGE OF3 CAUSE NO. 20-03-04145 ROBERT SULZBACH, AND SANDRA THE 457TH “SANDY” SULZBACH, Plaintiffs, vs. JAMERA CUSTOM HOMES, INC., Defendant / Third Party Plaintiff, VS. JUDICIALDISTRICT COURT OF CONRADO RAMIREZ; J. DOMINGO LOPEZ; JRI AIR INSTALL; GERADO LOPEZ; JOEL VILLARREAL; JOSE J. GARCIA; JOSE LORETO HUERTA; ALEJANDRO | HERNANDEZ; TIGRE CARPET, MACARIO de LEON, and METRO LIVING STUDIOS, Third Party Defendants. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Comes now, Plaintiffs, ROBERT SULZBACH and SANDY SULZBACH hereinafter “Plaintiffs,” by and through their Attorney of Record, Lawrence Chang, who file this their Fourth AmendedPetition., and in support thereof respectfully show the Court as follows: DISCOVERY PLAN Plaintiffs submit that this matter should be conducted under Discovery Plan Level Threeas set forth in Rule 190.4 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. PARTIES bert Sulzbach and Sandra “Sandy” Sulzbachare a married couple o reside in the State of Arizona and may be contacted through their undersigned attorney. Exhibit C Defendant,Jamera Custom Homes, Inc. is a rporation doing business in the State of Texas who can be served through their registered agent of record, Magda Garza, at 22922 Yukon River Dr., Porter, TX 77365. The Third Party Defendants were added by Jamera Custom Homes Inc. To the best of Plaintiffs’ knowledge, the Third Party Defendants reside in the State of Texas. JURISDICTION AND VENUE This Court has subject matter jurisdiction as the matter in controversy exceeds this Court’s minimum jurisdictional limits. Personal jurisdiction is proper in this matter as the Defendantresides in and transact business within the State of Texas, and have acquiesced to such jurisdiction. Venue is mandatory and proper under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code 15.017 as Montgomery County is the county whereall or a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred. IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On or about June 14 , 2018, Claimants entered into contract (the “Contract”) to purchase the property located at 27684 Rio Blanco Dr., Splendora, TX 77372 (the “Property from Defendant, Jamera Custom Homes, Inc. (“Jamera”). Jamera promised a specific floor plan prior to entering into the contract. On or about July 2, 2018, Jamera informed Claimants realtor that they were not going to build according to the floor plan selected by Claimants. Claimant, Robert Sulzbach, is a member of the United States Military who had been ordered to report to duty in early August, 2018. Claimants were relying on the delivery of the Property as outlined in the Contract and had planned their living arrangements accordingly. Jamera informed Claimants that they had made the decision to build the Property with a different floor plan beforeClaimants entered into the Contract and that they had no other option. Claimants were forced, under duress, to proceed under the Contract as they had no other option available. Prior to closing, Plaintiffs’ had a pre purchase inspection report doneand Jamera promised to repair all of the items pointed out in the pre purchase inspection report after closing was completed. laintiffs relied on this representation when purchasing the operty. Jamera did not do so. On or about August 13 , 2018, Claimants purchased the Property from Jamera. As part of that transaction, Jamera Homes provided Claimants with a ten (10) year home warranty through Defendant, Strucsure Home Warranty, LLC (‘‘Strucsure”’)and their own two (2) year Systems Warranty, andone (1) year Workmanship Warranty Under the warranty, Jamera was responsible for everything covered under the two year and one year warranty. On or about August 17, 2019, Claimants notified Jamera of a water leak in the kitchen. Jamera initially stated that the Workmanship Warranty hadexpired and denied the claim. Strucsure was also notified. Strucsure informed Jamera Homes that the leak fell under the Systems Warranty and that Jamera Homes was responsible for fixing it. Jamera agreed. While fixing the leak, Jamera discovered mold in the Property. Jamera informed Plaintiffs’ that the mold was not dangerous mold. Jamera removed some mold and allegedly fixed the leak. Jamera told Plaintiffs’ that the mold, water damage, and leak had been taken care of. Claimants hired Texas Mold Inspectors (“TMI”) to check whether or not the mold found in the Property was hazardous. TMI concluded that the Property contained toxic, deadly mold, and that it was unfit for human occupancy. That report was shared with Jamera in October of 2019. As part of the report, TMI found that the Property likely had inherent construction defects which was another producing cause of the mold. Those defects included improper attic ventilation and HVAC installation. TML also found heavy mold in the master bathroom. TMI suspected foundation issues were allowing moisture into the Property due to significant cracks near the ceiling present throughout the Property. Plaintiffs hired a roof expert who found that the ventilation of the roof was not built to code, causing humidity to be trapped in the house. Jamera’s defective construction of the roof, attic, and ventilation systems caused damage to other property, including the interior andexterior walls of the Property, and Plaintiffs’ personal possessions (clothing, furniture, etc). Through litigation, Plaintiffs discovered that Jamera only used unlicensed, unqualified workers to construct the Property. Through litigation, Plaintiffs discovered that Jamera built the foundation without following their foundation plans. Through litigation, Plaintiffs discovered that Jamera did not follow the minimum requirements of the City of Splendora when building the pad underneath thefoundation o the Property or when building the foundation of the Property. Jamera presented a remediation protocol to Claimants that did not address the inherent construction defects of the Property or the true cause of the mold. Jamera attempted to take advantage of Plaintiffs’ lack of expertise and knowledge by trying to get Plaintiffs’ to sign a release which included unconscionable provisions such as Claimants waiving their rightsunder the warranty Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Property if they had known Jamera constructed it with unlicensed employees. Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Property if they had known Jamera did not intend to honor their warranties. Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Property if they had known Jamera didnot build the Property in a good and workmanlike manner. Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Property if they had known Jamera did not follow the minimum code requirements of the City of Splendora. Plaintiffs would not have entered into contract ifJamera had been truthful about the floor plan of the Property. Claimants assert claims for breach of implied warranties, breach of express warranties, negligence, fraud, statutory fraud and fraudulent inducement, as well as claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act. Claimants gave noticeof their claims to Jamera and Strucsureon December 4, 2019. See Tex. BUS. COM. CODE 17.41 17.63. Claimants assert claims for negligence, fraud, and fraudulent inducement, as well as claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. (Tex Bus & Comm Code § 17.41 -17.63.) CAUSES OF ACTION Plaintiffs re allege and incorporate by reference all facts and allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs. Plaintiffs allege the following claims againstJamera: Violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act laintiffs hereby invoke the provisions of the Texas Business and Commerce Code et seq., commonly referred to as the Deceptive Trade Practices - Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter, “DTPA”). Plaintiffs ave a cause of action against Jamera under the provision of the DTPA pursuant to 17.50 (a), which provides remedies for any unconscionable action or course of action by any person by unreasonable delay, in payment, unreasonable denial of coverage, misrepresentation of facts; or the breach of an express or implied warranty. Defendants, by virtue of their conduct as described above, engaged in an unconscionable action or course of action as that term is defined by the DTPA. Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief set out in the Act. Jameraalso has violated various provisions of the Texas Business and Commerce Code 17.46 (b) including but not limited to: 17.46 (b)(13) - Knowingly making false or misleading statements of fact concerning the need for parts, replacement, or repair service; See Tex. BUS. COM. CODE § 17.41 17.63. 17.46 (b)(22) - representing that work or services had been performed, when the work or services were not performed 17.46 (b)(24) — failing to disclose information concerning goods or services which were known at the time of the transaction if such failure to disclose such information was intended to induce the consumer into a transaction into which the consumer would not have entered had the information been disclosed. Jamera’s assessment and removal of mold without a license was an unconscionable business practice that violated the DTPA. Jamera’s use of unqualified workers was an unconscionable business practice that violated the DTPA. Jamera intentionally ignoring the minimum construction standards of Splendora Texas was an unconscionable business practice that violated the DTPA. Jamera trying to take advantage of Plaintiffs’ by getting them to sign an agreement waiving their warranty in exchange for Jamera honoring their warranty was an unconscionable business practice as defined by the DTPA. The above violations of Texas Business and Commerce Code 17.46 (b) were a producing cause of Plaintiffs’ damages as hereinafter set forth and were committed knowingly, and maliciously. Fraud by Nondisclosure, Fraud in the Inducement and Statutory Fraud he allegations above are also included in Plaintiffs fraud claims. Jameramade representations to Plaintiffs which were material and false. When Jamera made such representations, Jamera knew them to be false, and made the representations maliciously with knowledge of their falsity. Jameramade these representations to Plaintiffs with the intent that Plaintiffs act on them. Plaintiffs relied on the false representations made by Defendants. The representations by Jamerahave caused Plaintiffs’ damages described herein. More specifically, Jamera knew that the Property did not fulfill the implied warranty of habitability or the implied warranty of good workmanship, from the pad underneath the foundation up. The actions and omissions of the Jamera constitute common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, and fraud by nondisclosure, which were the proximate cause of damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as described further herein. Plaintiffs’ would not have purchased the Property if Jamera had disclosed their full knowledge of the Property and its construction. Breach of Express and Implied Warranty Jamera failed to provide a habitable home that complies with the code requirements of the State of Texas. Jamera failed to provide a home according to the implied warranties of good workmanship and habitability. Jamera violated the express warranty they provided to Plaintiffs at closing by refusing to properly assess and remediate the property of mold and by refusing to perform the other repairs necessary to prevent the mold from coming back. amera violated their express warra ies by refusing to repair the construction defects in the Property. amera failure to deliver honor their warranties was a proximate cause of the damages of which Plaintiffs complain. Negligence/ Gross Negligence Jamera negligent, at best, when constructing the Property. Jamerawere ne gligent, at best, in their advertising. Jamera knew or should have known that using unlicensed workers, and not using the proper engineers or licensed contractors, could lead to the damages of which Plaintiffs complain. Jamera’s negligence was a proximate cause of the Plaintiffs damages as described herein. VI. DAMAGES As a consequence of Defendants’ wrongful acts described above, Plaintiff s have suffered actual and consequential damages. Plaintiffs seek general and special damagesPlaintiff s request and are entitled to costs of Court, and pre- and post- judgment interest at the maximum rate agreed to by the parties or permittedby law, pursuant to Texas law. Plaintiffs plead exemplary damages, including damages for mental distress and anguish, on all causes of action. Defendants committed the aforementioned acts with the kind of willfulness, wantonness, and/or malicious intent for which the law allows the imposition of exemplary damages. laintiffsestimate the cost of remediating the P roperty to be over $300,000.00. Remediating the Property is the appropriate remedy as it will put Plaintiffs in the position they would have been if not for the Defendants wrongful acts. In the alternative to the cost of remediation, Defendants owe Plaintiffs the money they lost when the Property was foreclosed. The Property was purchased through foreclosure for $312,245.75. The Property is appraised to be worth $455,000. Due to the presence of toxic mold, Defendant owes Plaintiffs the cost of relocationbefore they moved out of State. After that time, Defendants owe Plaintiffs for potential rent they lost since they could not lease the Property due to the presence of toxic mold. Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs for the value of the furniture and belongings in th Property that were lost to toxic mold exposure. Defendants owe Plaintiffs’ the income they would have received if they had been able to rent out the Property since the date they moved out. Defendants deceptive trade practice and fraud led to the proliferation of toxic mold in the Property, which may have caused long term personal injury to Plaintiffs.Defendants are liable for past and future medical expenses to treat the symptoms of toxic mold exposure, as well as for pain and suffering and mental anguish. VIL. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT AND RULE 47 STATEMENT All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been performed, have occurred or been waived. Pursuant to Rule 47 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs state they seek monetary relief over $1,000,000. Vil. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiffs request that Defendants disclose, within 30 days of the service of this request, the information or material described in Rule 194.2, subsections (a) — (1) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. IX. JURY REQUEST Pursuant to Rule 216 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs request a trial by jury and will tender the appropriate fee. PRAYER WHEREFORE,PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff pray s that Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein and that, upon trial, Plaintiffs receive Judgment as follows: Actual and economic damages, including but not limited to the costs of repair, value of the personal property lost to toxic mold exposure, loss of value at foreclosure, the value of damage to Plaintiffs credit, and the value of the loss of Plaintiffs’ ability to use a VA loan to purchase another property. b) Additional damages as provided by the DTPA: Costs of suit, including reasonable legal expenses; Reasonable and necessary attorney fees, as provided by the DTPA and the Civil Practice and Remedies Code; Pre- and post- judgment interest at the maximum rate provided by law; Exemplary Damages; Post-judgment discovery and collection in the event execution on the judgment is necessary; and Any and all other relief the Court deems appropriate in an amount within the jurisdicti