Preview
GR
CAUSE NUMBER 23 DCV 300667
IN RE DAVIS & JONES, LLC IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
D/B/A DEBT RECOVERY RESOURCES,
PETITIONER,
FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
HIPOLITO R. GARCIA, PG LANDSCAPES, LLC AND ROCIO LIZBETH
BAZALDUA’S MOTION TO DISMISS, OBJECTIONS AND OPPOSITION TO
PETITION TO TAKE RULE 202 DEPOSITIONS BEFORE SUIT TO
INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL CLAIMS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COU
COMES NOW, HIPOLITO R. GARCIA, Individually and as Representative of PG
LANDSCAPES, LLC and ROCIO LIZBETH BAZALDUA, as Non Party Witnesses and
Potential Defendants to the purported claims of Petitioner, DAVIS & JONES, LLC D/B/A
DEBT RECOVERY RESOURCES and in support of their Motion to Dismiss, Objections
and Opposition to Petitioner’s Petition to take Rule 202 Depositions Before Suit to
Investigate Potential Claims would respectfully show unto this Court as follows:
INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
n or about March 1, 2019 I entered into a verbal contract with DEBT RECOVERY
RESOURCES to collect a debt owed to my company by Alejandro Vasquez in the
approximate amount of $150,000.00. The Petitioner promised great results and that they
would commence work immediately. The agreement was that the debt collection company
would aggressively seek to recover this 2 year old debt and they would receive 20% of
what they collected. (See Exhibit 1 the 1 Page Memo that my former employee signed
explaining who owed me money, the amount of the debt and the Peititoner’s 20%
Contingency Fee) Exhibit 1 is incorporated by reference the same as if fully copied and
set forth at length for all purposes. Exhibit 1 is not signed by myself or anyone principal
or agent of the Petitioner. On January 17, 2020 the Petitioner advised that I needed to file
lawsuit against Alejandro Vasquez, so I entered into a representation contract for the
Petitioner to receive 30% of any funds collected and I had to pay $800.00 for the
Petitioner to file a lawsuit against Alejandro Vasquez to attempt to compel him to pay me
my money and the lawsuit was filed in Harris County Court at Law Number 2 under Cause
Number 116,0172 and the only thing that happened was we went to mediation and nothing
was accomplished by the Petitioner at mediation between myself and Mr. Vasquez.
After mediation in April 2021, I became very frustrated with the failure of the
Petitioner to collect my past due payments from Mr. Alejandro Vasquez so I called the
Petitioner and terminated their services that was on or about June 15, 2021. The
engagement paperwork that Petitioner had me sign was not very detailed at all and I did
not agree to allow them to hold me captive to an agreement that they could not honor.
The only reason I entered into an arrangement with Petitioner is because they boasted
about all their great collection success and how quickly they could convince Mr. Vasquez
to start paying me.
Around about July 15, 2021, at least a month after I terminated my contract with
the Petitioner, Mr. Vasquez contacted me and apologized for putting me through all the
grief of non-payment and promised that if I would just give him the chance he would
keep his word and pay his just debt to me and sent me some post-dated checks to start
depositing in a few months.
The contract with the petitioner is unconscionable because Petitioner is seeking to
recovery money for services not in any way rendered. The contract is unenforceable
because it is perpetual with no end date in sight and attempts force me to remain a client
despite the Petitioner’s substandard ability to perform the services promised, which was
collection of the debt of $150,000.00 and in two years time not one dime was collected
by the Petitioner. If the Petitioner truly believes that it has a justiciable cause of action
then Petitioner should file a lawsuit and prove it. Their contract is vague and ambiguous
and contains, on it face, elements of unjust enrichment, by seeking payments for funds
that not recover under the “contingency fee arrangement.” The only reason that the
Petitioner has filed this frivolous lawsuit is to harass me and attempt to follow through
on Petitioner’s multiple threatened conduct, which me and my staff laughed at, causing
the Petitioner and it’s agents to become enraged over the phone and at one point told a
staff member, we are going to sue you and take your home.
OBJECTIONS AND BASIS FOR DISMISSAL OF PETITION
Petitioner pleadings are defective and do not comport to the requirements of Rule
202 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and as a matter of law the Petitioner has failed
to establish the Prima Facie right to Pre-suit Discovery. Because our Supreme Court
recognizes the blatant abuse that has become possible under Rule 202, it fashioned the
standard that trial courts must “Rule 202 is not a license for forced interrogations. Courts
must strictly limit and carefully supervise pre-suit discovery to prevent abuse of the rule.”
In Re Wolfe, 341 S.W. 3d 932, 933 (Tex. 2011) (org. proceeding)(per curiam). “Rule 202
depositions are not now and never have been intended for routine use.” This
admonishment by the Texas Supreme Court was succinctly given in Jn Re Jorden, 249
S.W. 3d 416 (Tex. 2008). The Petitioner is seeking to persuade this Court to ignore the
mandates established by the highest court of our state, simply to allow this business entity
to go snooping to the business records and private affairs of the potential witnesses and
parties that Petitioner seeks to harass.
The Petitioner’s petition is clearly defective in that fails to meet the requirements
of Rule 202: Pre-suit discovery may be permitted for either of two purposes:
a. To perpetuate or obtain the person’s own testimony or that of any other person for
use in an anticipated suit; or
b. To investigate a potential claim or suit.
The purpose for which the discovery is sought dictates what the Petitioner must prove.
Tex. R. Civ. P. 202.4. The only possible claim that Petitioner could legitimately pursue
falls under breach of contract and it is false, misleading and disingenuous for Petitioner
to come into masquerading a potential litigant that does not know who has wrong the
Petitioner and the nature and extent of the harm. The Petitioner drafted every document
that potentially supports any alleged claims and/or causes of action. Only the Petitioner
knows the totality of the actions, efforts or conduct it undertook to fulfill and comply
with its specific performance under the contract or agreement. Nothing in the possession
of the Non-party potential witnesses is subject to destruction or spoilation, because ALL
of the documentation is either in the possession of the Petitioner or the possession of
local banking or financial institutions. Petitioner seeks money damages for breach of
contract, and either there is an enforceable contract between the parties or there is not!
Had Petitioner not first sought to go on a fishing expedition and campaign of harassment,
their lawsuit could have been filed back on January 25, 2023 with all discovery allowed
by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Petitioner would lawfully be in possession of
Sworn Answers to Interrogatories, Admissions or deemed admissions and Responses to
Production. Instead, Petitioner comes seeking extraordinary relief under Rule 202, when
all Petitioner has is a “run of the mill” and routine potential claim breach of contract.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF AND ATTORNEY’S FEES
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Movants herein pray this the Petition
of DAVIS & JONES, LLC D/B/A DEBT RECOVERY RESOURCES, Petitioner be
dismissed and that Movants as Non-Party Witnesses have and recovery from Petitioner
reasonable attorney’s fees. Movants pray for such other and further relief at law and in
equity that they may show themselves justly entitled to receive. Movants pray for general
relief.
Respectfully submitted,
THE LAW OFFICE OF NHAN NGUYEN
/s/ Adjua Umoja-Justic
Nhan Nguyen
Texas Bar No. 24041589
Nhan@westlooplaw.com
Adjua Umoja-Justice
Texas Bar No. 20377000
Adjua@westlooplaw.com
2500 West Loop South, Suite 340
Houston, Texas 77027
Telephone: 713/840-7200
Telecopier: 713/583-4155
*E-Service Email: eservice@westlooplaw.com
*E-Service is only accepted at the above
designated e-Service email address
ATTORNEYS FOR NON-PARTY WITNESSES
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on all counsel
of record, on April 14, 2023, as follows:
VIA PRODOC E-SERVE
M.H. Cersonsky, Esq.
John “Cortland” Timm
Cersonsky & McAnelly, P.C.
1770 St. James Place, Suite 150
Houston, Texas 77056
/s/ Adjua Umoja-Justice
Adjua Umoja-Justice
EXHIBIT 1
Debt Recovery
Resources
Shawn Guest
Office (866) 746-5389 ext. 207
Fax (972) 688-S525
sguest@debt-rr.com
Debtor Information
Business Name; Clean Cut Lawn was Sold to Alejandro Vasquez
Street Address; 13619 Balmore Circle
City; Houston state: 1X Zip: 77069
Telephone: 32-4 Fax: Other Tel:
Website: Email:
Primary Contact Name:
Secondary Contact Name;
Date of most recent unpaid invoice: 12/1/18 _ Date of oldest unpaid invoice 12/27/17
Principle Outstanding Balance: Client Added Fees:
TOTAL AMOUNT OUTSTANDING: 150,000
Contract: Yes No Invoices: Yes No Credit App: Yes No Statement: Yes NO
Client Information
Business Name: PG Landscapes LLC
Street Address: 19875 Southwest FWY
City: Sugar Land State: TX Zip: 77479
Telephone Fax: Other Tel:
Website: Email:
Primary Contact Name: Polo Garcia
Secondary Contact Name: Stephanie Colbert
Printes
Title: Ad min
Disclaimer
fy signing, you aut hnorite Debt Recovery Resources and/or its successors to work the above debtor at a contingency rate of 20% % of the full balanced
collected. If left blank, Dest Recovery Resources will work the file per thelr company standard rate system. Client agrees to cease all further communication with
efecred debtor uniess otherwise authorized by Debt Recovery Resources Full commissions charged on accounts collected, paid direct to chent, placed wih agency
incorrectly, settled by ret urn of merchandise, tient interference in negotiations, and/or cancelation of account. Cance|ation of account is defined as any account
due to legal conflict. Debt Recovery Resourc 2s ls authorized to settle, accept payments,
that is dosed by the client belcre collection efferts are completed or dosed
the net proceeds of which will be remitted to client. Special autheriranion Is required to file sat or grant
endorse checks, notes, money orders or drafts for deposit;
an extension.
EXHIBIT |
-
Representation Agreement
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into between PG Landscapes, LLC (CLIENT) and
Davis & Jones, LLC dba Debt Recovery Resources (DRR) This serves as an agreement between
both parties to move forward with litigation against Alejandro Vasquez. To institute suit on behalf
of Client or to use all other necessary legal proceedings for the recovery of the amounts due (subject
to approval of suit by Client and payment by Client of all required Court Costs.)
PAYMENT TERMS, Payments of the Contingency Fee will be made as set forth herein.
Contingency fees are earned when the debtor makes a payment, whether directly to Client, DRR, or
an attorney. Cancellation of an account, interference or substituting out our attorney without our
permission is subject to the contingency fee for the full amount placed, regardless if any funds were
collected or not.
o ‘ontingency fee once funds are collected
ent is responsible for a non-contingent suit fee of $800.00
If payment on any Account is made directly to Client, Client will report to DRR all such payments
within three (3) days of receipt. DRR will then invoice for commissions at time payment is
reported.
CLIENTS RESPONSIBILITIES AND OBLIGATIONS. Upon placement of the account with
DRR, Client agrees to cease any communication with the debtor. Client will provide DRR with all
reasonable information necessary for DRR to perform its duties hereunder if available. In the event
you facilitate the filing of a lawsuit through our office, please note that the debtor may decide to
counter-sue you once the action has been filed. Should this occur, you will be responsible for
retaining an attomey or law firm to defend you against this counter claim.
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES, DRR denies any and all representations and warranties,
express, implied, or statutory, pertaining to the performance of services hereunder. In no event, will
DRR be liable for lost profits or other incidental or consequential damages or for the collectability
of any Account under any circumstances.
PG Landscapes, LLC Debt Recovery Resources
Ui? [2020
SIGN DATE SIGN DATE
EXHIBIT 2
_ aor Mete
CAUSE NUMBER 23-DCV-300667
IN RE DAVIS & JONES, LLC IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
D/B/A DEBT RECOVERY RESOURCES,
PETITIONER,
FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
2687 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF FORT BEND §
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority personally appeared HIPOLITO R. GARCIA, known to
me who after being by me duly sworn on oath deposed and stated as follows:
“My name is Hipolito R. Garcia. I am over the age of 18 years and legally competent to make this
sworn statement. I have been served as a Non-Party Witness in the above styled lawsuit allegedly
for the purpose of forcing me to participate in Pre-Litigation Discovery.”
“On or about March 1, 2019 I entered into a verbal contract with DEBT RECOVERY
RESOURCES to collect a debt owed to my company by Alejandro Vasquez in the approximate
amount of $150,000.00. The Petitioner promised great results and that they would commence
work immediately. A few months after that Petitioner had a staff member sign Exhibit 1 which
simply stated they would collect the $150,000.00 for 20% of what they collected. The agreement
was that the debt collection company would aggressively seek to recover this 2 year old debt and
they would receive 20% of what they collected. On January 17, 2020 the Petitioner advised that I
needed to file lawsuit against Alejandro Vasquez, so I entered into a 1 page representation contract
for the Petitioner to receive 30% of any funds collected and I had to pay $800.00 for the Petitioner
to file a lawsuit against Alejandro Vasquez to attempt to compel him to pay me my money and the
lawsuit was filed in Harris County Court at Law Number 2 under Cause Number 116,0172 and the
only thing that happened was we went to mediation and nothing was accomplished by the
Petitioner at mediation between myself and Mr. Vasquez.”
“After mediation, I became very frustrated with the failure of the Petitioner to collect my past due
payments from Mr. Alejandro Vasquez so I called the Petitioner and terminated their services that
was on or about June 15, 2021. The engagement paperwork that Petitioner had me sign was not
very detailed at all and I did not agree to allow them to hold me captive to an agreement that they
could not honor. The only reason J entered into an arrangement with Petitioner is because they
boasted about all their great collection success and how quickly they could convince Mr. Vasquez
to start paying me.”
Page Two of Three
Affidavit: Garcia
“I rarely ever heard anything from the Petitioner, so T would tell my assistant to call them. They
promised results and could not deliver. I believe the taking of my deposition is just a fishing
expedition designed to harass and intimidate me into paying they for work they failed to perform
which is unconscionable. Moreover Petitioner fails to establish that it is entitled to Pre-Litigation
Discovery under Rule 202. The only documentation evidencing any form of agreement, is what
the Petitioner prepared and sent to me. Evidence of any payments that I was able to secure after I
fired Petitioner is permanently memorialized in the form of canceled checks, not subject to any
spoilation. The conduct of Petitioner in filing this litigation is tantamount to attempting to defraud
this Court into believing that Petitioner needs to engage in pre-suit Discovery to investigate it’s
alleged claims is pure subterfuge and baseless.”
“Petitioner marketed his business to me as highly trained collections experts who delivered fast
results. They told me their usual turn around time on commercial debts was a 90 day window. I
kept hanging on believing that the $150,000.00 would soon be paid in full. That did not happen
so after waiting nearly two years | terminated our relationship. There was no stipulation in the
agreement that J did not have the right to fire them if dissatisfied with the lack of results. There is
no stipulation in the agreement that J had to wait a certain period of time before resuming my own
collection efforts. I never understood or contemplating that | would be held in bondage to pay for
services to Petitioner that was NEVER delivered in two years. I believe Petitioner started
collection activity as far back as March 2019, they claim June 2019, but whatever date it started I
was thoroughly fed up by the failure of Petitioner to deliver on the promises made and I elected to
cut my losses, as it had become too much of a waste of my time. After 1 terminated their services,
was the first time I heard from Petitioner on a constant basis, as that was when they had
immediately began to threatened me and my office staff that we would all be sued. But after a two
year period of time. I told them I was done waiting for results and fired them. I did not give up
my right to decide what is in the best interest of my business, nor myself.”
“At some point in time after I fired Petitioner, Mr. Vasquez contacted me and apologized for
putting me through all the grief of non-payment and promised that if I would just give him the
chance he would keep his word and pay his just debt to me. Perhaps around, mid -July, 2021, a
month or so after I terminated my contract with the Petitioner, Mr. Vasquez sent me some post-
dated checks to start depositing in a few months.”
“The contract with the Petitioner is unconscionable because Petitioner is seeking to recovery
money for services not in any way rendered. The contract is also vague and contains no specific
details relative to the conduct of the parties to the agreement and the time frame for services to be
performed. I understood CONTINGENCY FEE to mean that I do not have to pay anything to the
Petitioner unless they actually recover the money that I hired them to collect.
Page Three of Three
Affidavit: Garcia
PETITIONER COLLECTED NOTHING ON MY BEHALF and it is unjust for Petitioner
to engage in this litigious activity to attempt to force me to pay for services that were not
party
delivered. The agreement is defective on it’s face because it is only signed by one
to the agreement, unenforceable because it is perpetual with no end date in sight and it
attempts to force me to remain a client despite the Petitioner’s substandard ability to
perform the services promised, which was collection of the debt of $150,000.00. TWO
years was more than enough time for Petitioner to perform its collection. The agreement
was drafted by Petitioner, and I know realize it was drafted in a manner to give Petitioner
an unjust and unconscionable advantage!”
“If the Petitioner truly believes that it has a justiciable cause of action then Petitioner
should file a lawsuit and prove it. Their contract is vague and ambiguous and contains,
on its face, elements of unjust enrichment, by seeking payments for funds that it did not
recover under the “contingency fee arrangement.” The only reason that the Petitioner has
filed this frivolous lawsuit is to harass me and attempt to follow through on Petitioner’s
multiple threatened conduct, which me and my staff laughed at, causing the Petitioner
and it’s agents to become enraged over the phone and at one point told a staff member,
we are going to sue you personally and take your home. Collection companies are not
supposed to harass and threaten people with illegal acts but this Petitioner does.”
“Petitioner pleadings are defective and do not comport to the requirements of Rule 202
of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.”
“FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.”
HIPOLI
sfEA [AroA AFFIANT
CLA Gh
SUBCRIBED and SWORN to on this | _ day of April, 2023.
® (ROTARY PUBLIC STATE OF TEXAS:
(ay COMM.
NOTARY
EXP 1/4/2028
ID 13072567-1 A
NOTARY PUBLIC/STATE OF TEXAS
SEAL:
CAUSE NUMBER 23-DCV-300667
IN RE DAVIS & JONES, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
D/B/A DEBT RECOVERY RESOURCES, §
PETITIONER,
§ FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
§
§ 2687 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF FORT BEND §
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority personally appeared ROCIO LIZBETH
BAZALDUA, known to me who after being by me duly sworn on oath deposed and stated
as follows:
“My name is Rocio Lizbeth Bazaldua. I am over the age of 18 years and legally competent to
make this sworn statement. I have prepared the affidavit to support my requests that the Petition
to take my Deposition under Rule 202 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure be denied. I am not
an officer, manager, director, shareholder, or member or principal of PG Landscapes, LLC or any
other business entity named in Petitioner’s Petition to take my deposition.”
“I worked for about 10 years as an office administrative assistant to Mr. Garcia and helped
with managing daily activities related to his various businesses, including real estate,
insurance, and other companies. I was on maternity when the Petitioner began
communicating with Mr. Garcia and the decision was made to allow Petitioner to do debt
collections against Mr. Vaquez.” “However, any decisions to enter into contractual
agreements or terminate contractual are done by my boss, Mr. Hipolito Garcia or someone
else above my Job Title, even if I had been on the job and working. When I returned from
maternity leave, my only active role in this case was to provide necessary information
needed by Debt Recovery Resources to make sure they had everything they needed for
their collections process against Alejandro Vasquez, at the expressed instruction of Mr.
Garcia. I did communicate with Debt Recovery Resources and follow up with them to
learn of any progress they were making, but there was never in successful collection
activity. I did speak with various staff at the office of Debt Recovery, but they never had
any positive news for Mr. Garcia. On one occasion I reached out to Petitioner’s office
because they would rarely ever call us with any updates and we were always left in the
dark without any updates on progress they were making.” “The first point of contact
that I can recall having was Shawn Guest which after a few months without hearing from
him and I had to reach out I was told he was no longer with the company and that our file
was just sitting there and later transferred to another representative, I believe her name
was Jessica. When Jessica came on board, she said that since they were not able to collect
any monies from Alejandro Vasquez, we would need to pursue legal action which cost
$800 to start the process.”
Scanned with CamScanner
Page Two of Two
Affidavit - Bazaldua
“After Mr. Garcia decided to terminate his agreement with Debt Recovery Resources
some time in June 2021, they started a collection campaign against myself and Mr. Garcia
I started receiving phone calls and text messages demanding payment. At first, I would
answer and let them know to stop calling me since I was not the person in charge of
monies for PG Landscapes or Hipolito Garcia. Debt Recovery Resources kept right on
harassing and threatening me and Mr. Garcia which constant, nearly daily telephone calls
and random emails. As time went on they began more aggressive and harassing and one
day I answered the phone and they told me that I needed to pay the $35,000.00 that was
owed to them or they will come and take away my house and any assets I owned. That’s
when I decided to stop answering any phone calls that would come from an unknown
number because I was sick and tired of the harassment and some of their threats made me
feel afraid at that point.”
“I cannot testify about the specific reasons why my boss fired the Petitioner other than
what I was told, which was that Mr. Garcia felt that he had wasted nearly two years of
time with no money collected by Petitioner and he regretted he had done business with
Petitioner.”
“FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH.”
Koup LQ Lotials
ROCIO LIZBETH BAZALDUA/AFFIANT
;
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to on this /3 day of April 2023.
/
J
Z/ Z
NOTARY PUBLIC; T £ a OF TEXAS
TR MONA NAOOM ALREHANI
SEAL: ID #10288057
My Commission Expires
LE September 05, 2023,
Scanned with CamScanner
CAUSE NUMBER 23-DCV-300667
IN RE DAVIS & JONES, LLC IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
D/B/A DEBT RECOVERY RESOURCES,
PETITIONER,
FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
2687 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF FORT BEND §
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority personally appeared HIPOLITO R. GARCIA, known to
me who after being by me duly sworn on oath deposed and stated as follows:
“My name is Hipolito R. Garcia. I am over the age of 18 years and legally competent to make this
sworn statement. I have been served as a Non-Party Witness in the above styled lawsuit allegedly
for the purpose of forcing me to participate in Pre-Litigation Discovery.”
“On or about March 1, 2019 I entered into a verbal contract with DEBT RECOVERY
RESOURCES to collect a debt owed to my company by Alejandro Vasquez in the approximate
amount of $150,000.00. The Petitioner promised great results and that they would commence
work immediately. A few months after that Petitioner had a staff member sign Exhibit 1 which
simply stated they would collect the $150,000.00 for 20% of what they collected. The agreement
was that the debt collection company would aggressively seek to recover this 2 year old debt and
they would receive 20% of what they collected. On January 17, 2020 the Petitioner advised that I
needed to file lawsuit against Alejandro Vasquez, so I entered into a 1 page representation contract
for the Petitioner to receive 30% of any funds collected and I had to pay $800.00 for the Petitioner
to file a lawsuit against Alejandro Vasquez to attempt to compel him to pay me my money and the
lawsuit was filed in Harris County Court at Law Number 2 under Cause Number 116,0172 and the
only thing that happened was we went to mediation and nothing was accomplished by the
Petitioner at mediation between myself and Mr. Vasquez.”
“After mediation, I became very frustrated with the failure of the Petitioner to collect my past due
payments from Mr. Alejandro Vasquez so I called the Petitioner and terminated their services that
was on or about June 15, 2021. The engagement paperwork that Petitioner had me sign was not
very detailed at all and I did not agree to allow them to hold me captive to an agreement that they
could not honor. The only reason J entered into an arrangement with Petitioner is because they
boasted about all their great collection success and how quickly they could convince Mr. Vasquez
to start paying me.”
Page Two of Three
Affidavit: Garcia
“I rarely ever heard anything from the Petitioner, so T would tell my assistant to call them. They
promised results and could not deliver. I believe the taking of my deposition is just a fishing
expedition designed to harass and intimidate me into paying they for work they failed to perform
which is unconscionable. Moreover Petitioner fails to establish that it is entitled to Pre-Litigation
Discovery under Rule 202. The only documentation evidencing any form of agreement, is what
the Petitioner prepared and sent to me. Evidence of any payments that I was able to secure after I
fired Petitioner is permanently memorialized in the form of canceled checks, not subject to any
spoilation. The conduct of Petitioner in filing this litigation is tantamount to attempting to defraud
this Court into believing that Petitioner needs to engage in pre-suit Discovery to investigate it’s
alleged claims is pure subterfuge and baseless.”
“Petitioner marketed his business to me as highly trained collections experts who delivered fast
results. They told me their usual turn around time on commercial debts was a 90 day window. I
kept hanging on believing that the $150,000.00 would soon be paid in full. That did not happen
so after waiting nearly two years | terminated our relationship. There was no stipulation in the
agreement that J did not have the right to fire them if dissatisfied with the lack of results. There is
no stipulation in the agreement that J had to wait a certain period of time before resuming my own
collection efforts. I never understood or contemplating that | would be held in bondage to pay for
services to Petitioner that was NEVER delivered in two years. I believe Petitioner started
collection activity as far back as March 2019, they claim June 2019, but whatever date it started I
was thoroughly fed up by the failure of Petitioner to deliver on the promises made and I elected to
cut my losses, as it had become too much of a waste of my time. After 1 terminated their services,
was the first time I heard from Petitioner on a constant basis, as that was when they had
immediately began to threatened me and my office staff that we would all be sued. But after a two
year period of time. I told them I was done waiting for results and fired them. I did not give up
my right to decide what is in the best interest of my business, nor myself.”
“At some point in time after I fired Petitioner, Mr. Vasquez contacted me and apologized for
putting me through all the grief of non-payment and promised that if I would just give him the
chance he would keep his word and pay his just debt to me. Perhaps around, mid -July, 2021, a
month or so after I terminated my contract with the Petitioner, Mr. Vasquez sent me some post-
dated checks to start depositing in a few months.”
“The contract with the Petitioner is unconscionable because Petitioner is seeking to recovery
money for services not in any way rendered. The contract is also vague and contains no specific
details relative to the conduct of the parties to the agreement and the time frame for services to be
performed. I understood CONTINGENCY FEE to mean that I do not have to pay anything to the
Petitioner unless they actually recover the money that I hired them to collect.
Page Three of Three
Affidavit: Garcia
PETITIONER COLLECTED NOTHING ON MY BEHALF and it is unjust for Petitioner
to engage in this litigious activity to attempt to force me to pay for services that were not
party
delivered. The agreement is defective on it’s face because it is only signed by one
to the agreement, unenforceable because it is perpetual with no end date in sight and it
attempts to force me to remain a client despite the Petitioner’s substandard ability to
perform the services promised, which was collection of the debt of $150,000.00. TWO
years was more than enough time for Petitioner to perform its collection. The agreement
was drafted by Petitioner, and I know realize it was drafted in a manner to give Petitioner
an unjust and unconscionable advantage!”
“If the Petitioner truly believes that it has a justiciable cause of action then Petitioner
should file a lawsuit and prove it. Their contract is vague and ambiguous and contains,
on its face, elements of unjust enrichment, by seeking payments for funds that it did not
recover under the “contingency fee arrangement.” The only reason that the Petitioner has
filed this frivolous lawsuit is to harass me and attempt to follow through on Petitioner’s
multiple threatened conduct, which me and my staff laughed at, causing the Petitioner
and it’s agents to become enraged over the phone and at one point told a staff member,
we are going to sue you personally and take your home. Collection companies are not
supposed to harass and threaten people with illegal acts but this Petitioner does.”
“Petitioner pleadings are defective and do not comport to the requirements of Rule 202
of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.”
“FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.”
HIPOLI
sfEA [AroA AFFIANT
CLA Gh
SUBCRIBED and SWORN to on this | _ day of April, 2023.
® (ROTARY PUBLIC STATE OF TEXAS:
(ay COMM.
NOTARY
EXP 1/4/2028
ID 13072567-1 A
NOTARY PUBLIC/STATE OF TEXAS
SEAL:
CAUSE NUMBER 23-DCV-300667
IN RE DAVIS & JONES, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
D/B/A DEBT RECOVERY RESOURCES, §
PETITIONER,
§ FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
§
§ 2687 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF FORT BEND §
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority personally appeared ROCIO LIZBETH
BAZALDUA, known to me who after being by me duly sworn on oath deposed and stated
as follows:
“My name is Rocio Lizbeth Bazaldua. I am over the age of 18 years and legally competent to
make this sworn statement. I have prepared the affidavit to support my requests that the Petition
to take my Deposition under Rule 202 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure be denied. I am not
an officer, manager, director, shareholder, or member or principal of PG Landscapes, LLC or any
other business entity named in Petitioner’s Petition to take my deposition.”
“I worked for about 10 years as an office administrative assistant to Mr. Garcia and helped
with managing daily activities related to his various businesses, including real estate,
insurance, and other companies. I was on maternity when the Petitioner began
communicating with Mr. Garcia and the decision was made to allow Petitioner to do debt
collections against Mr. Vaquez.” “However, any decisions to enter into contractual
agreements or terminate contractual are done by my boss, Mr. Hipolito Garcia or someone
else above my Job Title, even if I had been on the job and working. When I returned from
maternity leave, my only active role in this case was to provide necessary information
needed by Debt Recovery Resources to make sure they had everything they needed for
their collections process against Alejandro Vasquez, at the expressed instruction of Mr.
Garcia. I did communicate with Debt Recovery Resources and follow up with them to
learn of any progress they were making, but there was never in successful collection
activity. I did speak with various staff at the office of Debt Recovery, but they never had
any positive news for Mr. Garcia. On one occasion I reached out to Petitioner’s office
because they would rarely ever call us with any updates and we were always left in the
dark without any updates on progress they were making.” “The first point of contact
that I can recall having was Shawn Guest which after a few months without hearing from
him and I had to reach out I was told he was no longer with the company and that our file
was just sitting there and later transferred to another representative, I believe her name
was Jessica. When Jessica came on board, she said that since they were not able to collect
any monies from Alejandro Vasquez, we would need to pursue legal action which cost
$800 to start the process.”
Scanned with CamScanner
Page Two of Two
Affidavit - Bazaldua
“After Mr. Garcia decided to terminate his agreement with Debt Recovery Resources
some time in June 2021, they started a collection campaign against myself and Mr. Garcia
I started receiving phone calls and text messages demanding payment. At first, I would
answer and let them know to stop calling me since I was not the person in charge of
monies for PG Landscapes or Hipolito Garcia. Debt Recovery Resources kept right on
harassing and threatening me and Mr. Garcia which constant, nearly daily telephone calls
and random emails. As time went on they began more aggressive and harassing and one
day I answered the phone and they told me that I needed to pay the $35,000.00 that was
owed to them or they will come and take away my house and any assets I owned. That’s
when I decided to stop answering any phone calls that would come from an unknown
number because I was sick and tired of the harassment and some of their threats made me
feel afraid at that point.”
“I cannot testify about the specific reasons why my boss fired the Petitioner other than
what I was told, which was that Mr. Garcia felt that he had wasted nearly two years of
time with no money collected by Petitioner and he regretted he had done business with
Petitioner.”
“FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH.”
Koup LQ Lotials
ROCIO LIZBETH BAZALDUA/AFFIANT
;
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to on this /3 day of April 2023.
/
J
Z/ Z
NOTARY PUBLIC; T £ a OF TEXAS
TR MONA NAOOM ALREHANI
SEAL: ID #10288057
My Commission Expires
LE September 05, 2023,
Scanned with CamScanner
Preview
GR CAUSE NUMBER 23 DCV 300667 IN RE DAVIS & JONES, LLC IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF D/B/A DEBT RECOVERY RESOURCES, PETITIONER, FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS JUDICIAL DISTRICT HIPOLITO R. GARCIA, PG LANDSCAPES, LLC AND ROCIO LIZBETH BAZALDUA’S MOTION TO DISMISS, OBJECTIONS AND OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO TAKE RULE 202 DEPOSITIONS BEFORE SUIT TO INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL CLAIMS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COU COMES NOW, HIPOLITO R. GARCIA, Individually and as Representative of PG LANDSCAPES, LLC and ROCIO LIZBETH BAZALDUA, as Non Party Witnesses and Potential Defendants to the purported claims of Petitioner, DAVIS & JONES, LLC D/B/A DEBT RECOVERY RESOURCES and in support of their Motion to Dismiss, Objections and Opposition to Petitioner’s Petition to take Rule 202 Depositions Before Suit to Investigate Potential Claims would respectfully show unto this Court as follows: INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND n or about March 1, 2019 I entered into a verbal contract with DEBT RECOVERY RESOURCES to collect a debt owed to my company by Alejandro Vasquez in the approximate amount of $150,000.00. The Petitioner promised great results and that they would commence work immediately. The agreement was that the debt collection company would aggressively seek to recover this 2 year old debt and they would receive 20% of what they collected. (See Exhibit 1 the 1 Page Memo that my former employee signed explaining who owed me money, the amount of the debt and the Peititoner’s 20% Contingency Fee) Exhibit 1 is incorporated by reference the same as if fully copied and set forth at length for all purposes. Exhibit 1 is not signed by myself or anyone principal or agent of the Petitioner. On January 17, 2020 the Petitioner advised that I needed to file lawsuit against Alejandro Vasquez, so I entered into a representation contract for the Petitioner to receive 30% of any funds collected and I had to pay $800.00 for the Petitioner to file a lawsuit against Alejandro Vasquez to attempt to compel him to pay me my money and the lawsuit was filed in Harris County Court at Law Number 2 under Cause Number 116,0172 and the only thing that happened was we went to mediation and nothing was accomplished by the Petitioner at mediation between myself and Mr. Vasquez. After mediation in April 2021, I became very frustrated with the failure of the Petitioner to collect my past due payments from Mr. Alejandro Vasquez so I called the Petitioner and terminated their services that was on or about June 15, 2021. The engagement paperwork that Petitioner had me sign was not very detailed at all and I did not agree to allow them to hold me captive to an agreement that they could not honor. The only reason I entered into an arrangement with Petitioner is because they boasted about all their great collection success and how quickly they could convince Mr. Vasquez to start paying me. Around about July 15, 2021, at least a month after I terminated my contract with the Petitioner, Mr. Vasquez contacted me and apologized for putting me through all the grief of non-payment and promised that if I would just give him the chance he would keep his word and pay his just debt to me and sent me some post-dated checks to start depositing in a few months. The contract with the petitioner is unconscionable because Petitioner is seeking to recovery money for services not in any way rendered. The contract is unenforceable because it is perpetual with no end date in sight and attempts force me to remain a client despite the Petitioner’s substandard ability to perform the services promised, which was collection of the debt of $150,000.00 and in two years time not one dime was collected by the Petitioner. If the Petitioner truly believes that it has a justiciable cause of action then Petitioner should file a lawsuit and prove it. Their contract is vague and ambiguous and contains, on it face, elements of unjust enrichment, by seeking payments for funds that not recover under the “contingency fee arrangement.” The only reason that the Petitioner has filed this frivolous lawsuit is to harass me and attempt to follow through on Petitioner’s multiple threatened conduct, which me and my staff laughed at, causing the Petitioner and it’s agents to become enraged over the phone and at one point told a staff member, we are going to sue you and take your home. OBJECTIONS AND BASIS FOR DISMISSAL OF PETITION Petitioner pleadings are defective and do not comport to the requirements of Rule 202 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and as a matter of law the Petitioner has failed to establish the Prima Facie right to Pre-suit Discovery. Because our Supreme Court recognizes the blatant abuse that has become possible under Rule 202, it fashioned the standard that trial courts must “Rule 202 is not a license for forced interrogations. Courts must strictly limit and carefully supervise pre-suit discovery to prevent abuse of the rule.” In Re Wolfe, 341 S.W. 3d 932, 933 (Tex. 2011) (org. proceeding)(per curiam). “Rule 202 depositions are not now and never have been intended for routine use.” This admonishment by the Texas Supreme Court was succinctly given in Jn Re Jorden, 249 S.W. 3d 416 (Tex. 2008). The Petitioner is seeking to persuade this Court to ignore the mandates established by the highest court of our state, simply to allow this business entity to go snooping to the business records and private affairs of the potential witnesses and parties that Petitioner seeks to harass. The Petitioner’s petition is clearly defective in that fails to meet the requirements of Rule 202: Pre-suit discovery may be permitted for either of two purposes: a. To perpetuate or obtain the person’s own testimony or that of any other person for use in an anticipated suit; or b. To investigate a potential claim or suit. The purpose for which the discovery is sought dictates what the Petitioner must prove. Tex. R. Civ. P. 202.4. The only possible claim that Petitioner could legitimately pursue falls under breach of contract and it is false, misleading and disingenuous for Petitioner to come into masquerading a potential litigant that does not know who has wrong the Petitioner and the nature and extent of the harm. The Petitioner drafted every document that potentially supports any alleged claims and/or causes of action. Only the Petitioner knows the totality of the actions, efforts or conduct it undertook to fulfill and comply with its specific performance under the contract or agreement. Nothing in the possession of the Non-party potential witnesses is subject to destruction or spoilation, because ALL of the documentation is either in the possession of the Petitioner or the possession of local banking or financial institutions. Petitioner seeks money damages for breach of contract, and either there is an enforceable contract between the parties or there is not! Had Petitioner not first sought to go on a fishing expedition and campaign of harassment, their lawsuit could have been filed back on January 25, 2023 with all discovery allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Petitioner would lawfully be in possession of Sworn Answers to Interrogatories, Admissions or deemed admissions and Responses to Production. Instead, Petitioner comes seeking extraordinary relief under Rule 202, when all Petitioner has is a “run of the mill” and routine potential claim breach of contract. PRAYER FOR RELIEF AND ATTORNEY’S FEES WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Movants herein pray this the Petition of DAVIS & JONES, LLC D/B/A DEBT RECOVERY RESOURCES, Petitioner be dismissed and that Movants as Non-Party Witnesses have and recovery from Petitioner reasonable attorney’s fees. Movants pray for such other and further relief at law and in equity that they may show themselves justly entitled to receive. Movants pray for general relief. Respectfully submitted, THE LAW OFFICE OF NHAN NGUYEN /s/ Adjua Umoja-Justic Nhan Nguyen Texas Bar No. 24041589 Nhan@westlooplaw.com Adjua Umoja-Justice Texas Bar No. 20377000 Adjua@westlooplaw.com 2500 West Loop South, Suite 340 Houston, Texas 77027 Telephone: 713/840-7200 Telecopier: 713/583-4155 *E-Service Email: eservice@westlooplaw.com *E-Service is only accepted at the above designated e-Service email address ATTORNEYS FOR NON-PARTY WITNESSES CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on all counsel of record, on April 14, 2023, as follows: VIA PRODOC E-SERVE M.H. Cersonsky, Esq. John “Cortland” Timm Cersonsky & McAnelly, P.C. 1770 St. James Place, Suite 150 Houston, Texas 77056 /s/ Adjua Umoja-Justice Adjua Umoja-Justice EXHIBIT 1 Debt Recovery Resources Shawn Guest Office (866) 746-5389 ext. 207 Fax (972) 688-S525 sguest@debt-rr.com Debtor Information Business Name; Clean Cut Lawn was Sold to Alejandro Vasquez Street Address; 13619 Balmore Circle City; Houston state: 1X Zip: 77069 Telephone: 32-4 Fax: Other Tel: Website: Email: Primary Contact Name: Secondary Contact Name; Date of most recent unpaid invoice: 12/1/18 _ Date of oldest unpaid invoice 12/27/17 Principle Outstanding Balance: Client Added Fees: TOTAL AMOUNT OUTSTANDING: 150,000 Contract: Yes No Invoices: Yes No Credit App: Yes No Statement: Yes NO Client Information Business Name: PG Landscapes LLC Street Address: 19875 Southwest FWY City: Sugar Land State: TX Zip: 77479 Telephone Fax: Other Tel: Website: Email: Primary Contact Name: Polo Garcia Secondary Contact Name: Stephanie Colbert Printes Title: Ad min Disclaimer fy signing, you aut hnorite Debt Recovery Resources and/or its successors to work the above debtor at a contingency rate of 20% % of the full balanced collected. If left blank, Dest Recovery Resources will work the file per thelr company standard rate system. Client agrees to cease all further communication with efecred debtor uniess otherwise authorized by Debt Recovery Resources Full commissions charged on accounts collected, paid direct to chent, placed wih agency incorrectly, settled by ret urn of merchandise, tient interference in negotiations, and/or cancelation of account. Cance|ation of account is defined as any account due to legal conflict. Debt Recovery Resourc 2s ls authorized to settle, accept payments, that is dosed by the client belcre collection efferts are completed or dosed the net proceeds of which will be remitted to client. Special autheriranion Is required to file sat or grant endorse checks, notes, money orders or drafts for deposit; an extension. EXHIBIT | - Representation Agreement THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into between PG Landscapes, LLC (CLIENT) and Davis & Jones, LLC dba Debt Recovery Resources (DRR) This serves as an agreement between both parties to move forward with litigation against Alejandro Vasquez. To institute suit on behalf of Client or to use all other necessary legal proceedings for the recovery of the amounts due (subject to approval of suit by Client and payment by Client of all required Court Costs.) PAYMENT TERMS, Payments of the Contingency Fee will be made as set forth herein. Contingency fees are earned when the debtor makes a payment, whether directly to Client, DRR, or an attorney. Cancellation of an account, interference or substituting out our attorney without our permission is subject to the contingency fee for the full amount placed, regardless if any funds were collected or not. o ‘ontingency fee once funds are collected ent is responsible for a non-contingent suit fee of $800.00 If payment on any Account is made directly to Client, Client will report to DRR all such payments within three (3) days of receipt. DRR will then invoice for commissions at time payment is reported. CLIENTS RESPONSIBILITIES AND OBLIGATIONS. Upon placement of the account with DRR, Client agrees to cease any communication with the debtor. Client will provide DRR with all reasonable information necessary for DRR to perform its duties hereunder if available. In the event you facilitate the filing of a lawsuit through our office, please note that the debtor may decide to counter-sue you once the action has been filed. Should this occur, you will be responsible for retaining an attomey or law firm to defend you against this counter claim. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES, DRR denies any and all representations and warranties, express, implied, or statutory, pertaining to the performance of services hereunder. In no event, will DRR be liable for lost profits or other incidental or consequential damages or for the collectability of any Account under any circumstances. PG Landscapes, LLC Debt Recovery Resources Ui? [2020 SIGN DATE SIGN DATE EXHIBIT 2 _ aor Mete CAUSE NUMBER 23-DCV-300667 IN RE DAVIS & JONES, LLC IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF D/B/A DEBT RECOVERY RESOURCES, PETITIONER, FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS 2687 JUDICIAL DISTRICT SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF FORT BEND § BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority personally appeared HIPOLITO R. GARCIA, known to me who after being by me duly sworn on oath deposed and stated as follows: “My name is Hipolito R. Garcia. I am over the age of 18 years and legally competent to make this sworn statement. I have been served as a Non-Party Witness in the above styled lawsuit allegedly for the purpose of forcing me to participate in Pre-Litigation Discovery.” “On or about March 1, 2019 I entered into a verbal contract with DEBT RECOVERY RESOURCES to collect a debt owed to my company by Alejandro Vasquez in the approximate amount of $150,000.00. The Petitioner promised great results and that they would commence work immediately. A few months after that Petitioner had a staff member sign Exhibit 1 which simply stated they would collect the $150,000.00 for 20% of what they collected. The agreement was that the debt collection company would aggressively seek to recover this 2 year old debt and they would receive 20% of what they collected. On January 17, 2020 the Petitioner advised that I needed to file lawsuit against Alejandro Vasquez, so I entered into a 1 page representation contract for the Petitioner to receive 30% of any funds collected and I had to pay $800.00 for the Petitioner to file a lawsuit against Alejandro Vasquez to attempt to compel him to pay me my money and the lawsuit was filed in Harris County Court at Law Number 2 under Cause Number 116,0172 and the only thing that happened was we went to mediation and nothing was accomplished by the Petitioner at mediation between myself and Mr. Vasquez.” “After mediation, I became very frustrated with the failure of the Petitioner to collect my past due payments from Mr. Alejandro Vasquez so I called the Petitioner and terminated their services that was on or about June 15, 2021. The engagement paperwork that Petitioner had me sign was not very detailed at all and I did not agree to allow them to hold me captive to an agreement that they could not honor. The only reason J entered into an arrangement with Petitioner is because they boasted about all their great collection success and how quickly they could convince Mr. Vasquez to start paying me.” Page Two of Three Affidavit: Garcia “I rarely ever heard anything from the Petitioner, so T would tell my assistant to call them. They promised results and could not deliver. I believe the taking of my deposition is just a fishing expedition designed to harass and intimidate me into paying they for work they failed to perform which is unconscionable. Moreover Petitioner fails to establish that it is entitled to Pre-Litigation Discovery under Rule 202. The only documentation evidencing any form of agreement, is what the Petitioner prepared and sent to me. Evidence of any payments that I was able to secure after I fired Petitioner is permanently memorialized in the form of canceled checks, not subject to any spoilation. The conduct of Petitioner in filing this litigation is tantamount to attempting to defraud this Court into believing that Petitioner needs to engage in pre-suit Discovery to investigate it’s alleged claims is pure subterfuge and baseless.” “Petitioner marketed his business to me as highly trained collections experts who delivered fast results. They told me their usual turn around time on commercial debts was a 90 day window. I kept hanging on believing that the $150,000.00 would soon be paid in full. That did not happen so after waiting nearly two years | terminated our relationship. There was no stipulation in the agreement that J did not have the right to fire them if dissatisfied with the lack of results. There is no stipulation in the agreement that J had to wait a certain period of time before resuming my own collection efforts. I never understood or contemplating that | would be held in bondage to pay for services to Petitioner that was NEVER delivered in two years. I believe Petitioner started collection activity as far back as March 2019, they claim June 2019, but whatever date it started I was thoroughly fed up by the failure of Petitioner to deliver on the promises made and I elected to cut my losses, as it had become too much of a waste of my time. After 1 terminated their services, was the first time I heard from Petitioner on a constant basis, as that was when they had immediately began to threatened me and my office staff that we would all be sued. But after a two year period of time. I told them I was done waiting for results and fired them. I did not give up my right to decide what is in the best interest of my business, nor myself.” “At some point in time after I fired Petitioner, Mr. Vasquez contacted me and apologized for putting me through all the grief of non-payment and promised that if I would just give him the chance he would keep his word and pay his just debt to me. Perhaps around, mid -July, 2021, a month or so after I terminated my contract with the Petitioner, Mr. Vasquez sent me some post- dated checks to start depositing in a few months.” “The contract with the Petitioner is unconscionable because Petitioner is seeking to recovery money for services not in any way rendered. The contract is also vague and contains no specific details relative to the conduct of the parties to the agreement and the time frame for services to be performed. I understood CONTINGENCY FEE to mean that I do not have to pay anything to the Petitioner unless they actually recover the money that I hired them to collect. Page Three of Three Affidavit: Garcia PETITIONER COLLECTED NOTHING ON MY BEHALF and it is unjust for Petitioner to engage in this litigious activity to attempt to force me to pay for services that were not party delivered. The agreement is defective on it’s face because it is only signed by one to the agreement, unenforceable because it is perpetual with no end date in sight and it attempts to force me to remain a client despite the Petitioner’s substandard ability to perform the services promised, which was collection of the debt of $150,000.00. TWO years was more than enough time for Petitioner to perform its collection. The agreement was drafted by Petitioner, and I know realize it was drafted in a manner to give Petitioner an unjust and unconscionable advantage!” “If the Petitioner truly believes that it has a justiciable cause of action then Petitioner should file a lawsuit and prove it. Their contract is vague and ambiguous and contains, on its face, elements of unjust enrichment, by seeking payments for funds that it did not recover under the “contingency fee arrangement.” The only reason that the Petitioner has filed this frivolous lawsuit is to harass me and attempt to follow through on Petitioner’s multiple threatened conduct, which me and my staff laughed at, causing the Petitioner and it’s agents to become enraged over the phone and at one point told a staff member, we are going to sue you personally and take your home. Collection companies are not supposed to harass and threaten people with illegal acts but this Petitioner does.” “Petitioner pleadings are defective and do not comport to the requirements of Rule 202 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.” “FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.” HIPOLI sfEA [AroA AFFIANT CLA Gh SUBCRIBED and SWORN to on this | _ day of April, 2023. ® (ROTARY PUBLIC STATE OF TEXAS: (ay COMM. NOTARY EXP 1/4/2028 ID 13072567-1 A NOTARY PUBLIC/STATE OF TEXAS SEAL: CAUSE NUMBER 23-DCV-300667 IN RE DAVIS & JONES, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF D/B/A DEBT RECOVERY RESOURCES, § PETITIONER, § FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS § § 2687 JUDICIAL DISTRICT SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF FORT BEND § BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority personally appeared ROCIO LIZBETH BAZALDUA, known to me who after being by me duly sworn on oath deposed and stated as follows: “My name is Rocio Lizbeth Bazaldua. I am over the age of 18 years and legally competent to make this sworn statement. I have prepared the affidavit to support my requests that the Petition to take my Deposition under Rule 202 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure be denied. I am not an officer, manager, director, shareholder, or member or principal of PG Landscapes, LLC or any other business entity named in Petitioner’s Petition to take my deposition.” “I worked for about 10 years as an office administrative assistant to Mr. Garcia and helped with managing daily activities related to his various businesses, including real estate, insurance, and other companies. I was on maternity when the Petitioner began communicating with Mr. Garcia and the decision was made to allow Petitioner to do debt collections against Mr. Vaquez.” “However, any decisions to enter into contractual agreements or terminate contractual are done by my boss, Mr. Hipolito Garcia or someone else above my Job Title, even if I had been on the job and working. When I returned from maternity leave, my only active role in this case was to provide necessary information needed by Debt Recovery Resources to make sure they had everything they needed for their collections process against Alejandro Vasquez, at the expressed instruction of Mr. Garcia. I did communicate with Debt Recovery Resources and follow up with them to learn of any progress they were making, but there was never in successful collection activity. I did speak with various staff at the office of Debt Recovery, but they never had any positive news for Mr. Garcia. On one occasion I reached out to Petitioner’s office because they would rarely ever call us with any updates and we were always left in the dark without any updates on progress they were making.” “The first point of contact that I can recall having was Shawn Guest which after a few months without hearing from him and I had to reach out I was told he was no longer with the company and that our file was just sitting there and later transferred to another representative, I believe her name was Jessica. When Jessica came on board, she said that since they were not able to collect any monies from Alejandro Vasquez, we would need to pursue legal action which cost $800 to start the process.” Scanned with CamScanner Page Two of Two Affidavit - Bazaldua “After Mr. Garcia decided to terminate his agreement with Debt Recovery Resources some time in June 2021, they started a collection campaign against myself and Mr. Garcia I started receiving phone calls and text messages demanding payment. At first, I would answer and let them know to stop calling me since I was not the person in charge of monies for PG Landscapes or Hipolito Garcia. Debt Recovery Resources kept right on harassing and threatening me and Mr. Garcia which constant, nearly daily telephone calls and random emails. As time went on they began more aggressive and harassing and one day I answered the phone and they told me that I needed to pay the $35,000.00 that was owed to them or they will come and take away my house and any assets I owned. That’s when I decided to stop answering any phone calls that would come from an unknown number because I was sick and tired of the harassment and some of their threats made me feel afraid at that point.” “I cannot testify about the specific reasons why my boss fired the Petitioner other than what I was told, which was that Mr. Garcia felt that he had wasted nearly two years of time with no money collected by Petitioner and he regretted he had done business with Petitioner.” “FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH.” Koup LQ Lotials ROCIO LIZBETH BAZALDUA/AFFIANT ; SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to on this /3 day of April 2023. / J Z/ Z NOTARY PUBLIC; T £ a OF TEXAS TR MONA NAOOM ALREHANI SEAL: ID #10288057 My Commission Expires LE September 05, 2023, Scanned with CamScanner CAUSE NUMBER 23-DCV-300667 IN RE DAVIS & JONES, LLC IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF D/B/A DEBT RECOVERY RESOURCES, PETITIONER, FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS 2687 JUDICIAL DISTRICT SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF FORT BEND § BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority personally appeared HIPOLITO R. GARCIA, known to me who after being by me duly sworn on oath deposed and stated as follows: “My name is Hipolito R. Garcia. I am over the age of 18 years and legally competent to make this sworn statement. I have been served as a Non-Party Witness in the above styled lawsuit allegedly for the purpose of forcing me to participate in Pre-Litigation Discovery.” “On or about March 1, 2019 I entered into a verbal contract with DEBT RECOVERY RESOURCES to collect a debt owed to my company by Alejandro Vasquez in the approximate amount of $150,000.00. The Petitioner promised great results and that they would commence work immediately. A few months after that Petitioner had a staff member sign Exhibit 1 which simply stated they would collect the $150,000.00 for 20% of what they collected. The agreement was that the debt collection company would aggressively seek to recover this 2 year old debt and they would receive 20% of what they collected. On January 17, 2020 the Petitioner advised that I needed to file lawsuit against Alejandro Vasquez, so I entered into a 1 page representation contract for the Petitioner to receive 30% of any funds collected and I had to pay $800.00 for the Petitioner to file a lawsuit against Alejandro Vasquez to attempt to compel him to pay me my money and the lawsuit was filed in Harris County Court at Law Number 2 under Cause Number 116,0172 and the only thing that happened was we went to mediation and nothing was accomplished by the Petitioner at mediation between myself and Mr. Vasquez.” “After mediation, I became very frustrated with the failure of the Petitioner to collect my past due payments from Mr. Alejandro Vasquez so I called the Petitioner and terminated their services that was on or about June 15, 2021. The engagement paperwork that Petitioner had me sign was not very detailed at all and I did not agree to allow them to hold me captive to an agreement that they could not honor. The only reason J entered into an arrangement with Petitioner is because they boasted about all their great collection success and how quickly they could convince Mr. Vasquez to start paying me.” Page Two of Three Affidavit: Garcia “I rarely ever heard anything from the Petitioner, so T would tell my assistant to call them. They promised results and could not deliver. I believe the taking of my deposition is just a fishing expedition designed to harass and intimidate me into paying they for work they failed to perform which is unconscionable. Moreover Petitioner fails to establish that it is entitled to Pre-Litigation Discovery under Rule 202. The only documentation evidencing any form of agreement, is what the Petitioner prepared and sent to me. Evidence of any payments that I was able to secure after I fired Petitioner is permanently memorialized in the form of canceled checks, not subject to any spoilation. The conduct of Petitioner in filing this litigation is tantamount to attempting to defraud this Court into believing that Petitioner needs to engage in pre-suit Discovery to investigate it’s alleged claims is pure subterfuge and baseless.” “Petitioner marketed his business to me as highly trained collections experts who delivered fast results. They told me their usual turn around time on commercial debts was a 90 day window. I kept hanging on believing that the $150,000.00 would soon be paid in full. That did not happen so after waiting nearly two years | terminated our relationship. There was no stipulation in the agreement that J did not have the right to fire them if dissatisfied with the lack of results. There is no stipulation in the agreement that J had to wait a certain period of time before resuming my own collection efforts. I never understood or contemplating that | would be held in bondage to pay for services to Petitioner that was NEVER delivered in two years. I believe Petitioner started collection activity as far back as March 2019, they claim June 2019, but whatever date it started I was thoroughly fed up by the failure of Petitioner to deliver on the promises made and I elected to cut my losses, as it had become too much of a waste of my time. After 1 terminated their services, was the first time I heard from Petitioner on a constant basis, as that was when they had immediately began to threatened me and my office staff that we would all be sued. But after a two year period of time. I told them I was done waiting for results and fired them. I did not give up my right to decide what is in the best interest of my business, nor myself.” “At some point in time after I fired Petitioner, Mr. Vasquez contacted me and apologized for putting me through all the grief of non-payment and promised that if I would just give him the chance he would keep his word and pay his just debt to me. Perhaps around, mid -July, 2021, a month or so after I terminated my contract with the Petitioner, Mr. Vasquez sent me some post- dated checks to start depositing in a few months.” “The contract with the Petitioner is unconscionable because Petitioner is seeking to recovery money for services not in any way rendered. The contract is also vague and contains no specific details relative to the conduct of the parties to the agreement and the time frame for services to be performed. I understood CONTINGENCY FEE to mean that I do not have to pay anything to the Petitioner unless they actually recover the money that I hired them to collect. Page Three of Three Affidavit: Garcia PETITIONER COLLECTED NOTHING ON MY BEHALF and it is unjust for Petitioner to engage in this litigious activity to attempt to force me to pay for services that were not party delivered. The agreement is defective on it’s face because it is only signed by one to the agreement, unenforceable because it is perpetual with no end date in sight and it attempts to force me to remain a client despite the Petitioner’s substandard ability to perform the services promised, which was collection of the debt of $150,000.00. TWO years was more than enough time for Petitioner to perform its collection. The agreement was drafted by Petitioner, and I know realize it was drafted in a manner to give Petitioner an unjust and unconscionable advantage!” “If the Petitioner truly believes that it has a justiciable cause of action then Petitioner should file a lawsuit and prove it. Their contract is vague and ambiguous and contains, on its face, elements of unjust enrichment, by seeking payments for funds that it did not recover under the “contingency fee arrangement.” The only reason that the Petitioner has filed this frivolous lawsuit is to harass me and attempt to follow through on Petitioner’s multiple threatened conduct, which me and my staff laughed at, causing the Petitioner and it’s agents to become enraged over the phone and at one point told a staff member, we are going to sue you personally and take your home. Collection companies are not supposed to harass and threaten people with illegal acts but this Petitioner does.” “Petitioner pleadings are defective and do not comport to the requirements of Rule 202 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.” “FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.” HIPOLI sfEA [AroA AFFIANT CLA Gh SUBCRIBED and SWORN to on this | _ day of April, 2023. ® (ROTARY PUBLIC STATE OF TEXAS: (ay COMM. NOTARY EXP 1/4/2028 ID 13072567-1 A NOTARY PUBLIC/STATE OF TEXAS SEAL: CAUSE NUMBER 23-DCV-300667 IN RE DAVIS & JONES, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF D/B/A DEBT RECOVERY RESOURCES, § PETITIONER, § FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS § § 2687 JUDICIAL DISTRICT SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF FORT BEND § BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority personally appeared ROCIO LIZBETH BAZALDUA, known to me who after being by me duly sworn on oath deposed and stated as follows: “My name is Rocio Lizbeth Bazaldua. I am over the age of 18 years and legally competent to make this sworn statement. I have prepared the affidavit to support my requests that the Petition to take my Deposition under Rule 202 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure be denied. I am not an officer, manager, director, shareholder, or member or principal of PG Landscapes, LLC or any other business entity named in Petitioner’s Petition to take my deposition.” “I worked for about 10 years as an office administrative assistant to Mr. Garcia and helped with managing daily activities related to his various businesses, including real estate, insurance, and other companies. I was on maternity when the Petitioner began communicating with Mr. Garcia and the decision was made to allow Petitioner to do debt collections against Mr. Vaquez.” “However, any decisions to enter into contractual agreements or terminate contractual are done by my boss, Mr. Hipolito Garcia or someone else above my Job Title, even if I had been on the job and working. When I returned from maternity leave, my only active role in this case was to provide necessary information needed by Debt Recovery Resources to make sure they had everything they needed for their collections process against Alejandro Vasquez, at the expressed instruction of Mr. Garcia. I did communicate with Debt Recovery Resources and follow up with them to learn of any progress they were making, but there was never in successful collection activity. I did speak with various staff at the office of Debt Recovery, but they never had any positive news for Mr. Garcia. On one occasion I reached out to Petitioner’s office because they would rarely ever call us with any updates and we were always left in the dark without any updates on progress they were making.” “The first point of contact that I can recall having was Shawn Guest which after a few months without hearing from him and I had to reach out I was told he was no longer with the company and that our file was just sitting there and later transferred to another representative, I believe her name was Jessica. When Jessica came on board, she said that since they were not able to collect any monies from Alejandro Vasquez, we would need to pursue legal action which cost $800 to start the process.” Scanned with CamScanner Page Two of Two Affidavit - Bazaldua “After Mr. Garcia decided to terminate his agreement with Debt Recovery Resources some time in June 2021, they started a collection campaign against myself and Mr. Garcia I started receiving phone calls and text messages demanding payment. At first, I would answer and let them know to stop calling me since I was not the person in charge of monies for PG Landscapes or Hipolito Garcia. Debt Recovery Resources kept right on harassing and threatening me and Mr. Garcia which constant, nearly daily telephone calls and random emails. As time went on they began more aggressive and harassing and one day I answered the phone and they told me that I needed to pay the $35,000.00 that was owed to them or they will come and take away my house and any assets I owned. That’s when I decided to stop answering any phone calls that would come from an unknown number because I was sick and tired of the harassment and some of their threats made me feel afraid at that point.” “I cannot testify about the specific reasons why my boss fired the Petitioner other than what I was told, which was that Mr. Garcia felt that he had wasted nearly two years of time with no money collected by Petitioner and he regretted he had done business with Petitioner.” “FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH.” Koup LQ Lotials ROCIO LIZBETH BAZALDUA/AFFIANT ; SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to on this /3 day of April 2023. / J Z/ Z NOTARY PUBLIC; T £ a OF TEXAS TR MONA NAOOM ALREHANI SEAL: ID #10288057 My Commission Expires LE September 05, 2023, Scanned with CamScanner