Preview
CAUSE NO.
IMPERIAL LOFTS, LLC IN THE COUNTY CIVIL COURT
laintiff
AT LAW NO. ONE (1)
SETH RICHARD GUTIERREZ,
CHRISTOPHER TURNER AND ALL
OCCUPANTS
Defendants FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
SECOND AMENDED RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COME NOW, Plaintiff, IMPERIAL LOFTS “Plaintiff” or Landlord ), and file this its
Second Amended Response to Michael Bitgood’s (“Bitgood”) Motion for Sanctions, states as
UMMARY OF ESPONSE
Bitgood’s Motion for Sanctions, joined in by Seth Gutierrez, (the “Motion”) is
without merit and contains bad faith allegations meant for the purposes of harassment. The
Plaintiff is entitled to recover “the reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred in . . .
opposing [this] motion.” See EM ODE § 10.002(c
e Motion seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and four parties. First, Bitgood
seeks sanctions against Hoover Slovacek LLP the law firm representing Plaintiff. See
Motion. Second, the Motion seeks sanctions against Nolan Real Estate (“Nolan”) for conspiracy
to “perpetuate fraud upon the courts.” See Motion Nolan is not a party to this suit. Third, the
Motion seeks sanctions against Marianna Sullivan. See Motion. Ms. Sullivan is not a party to the
{151235/00459/01672319.DOCX 1 }
suit. Fourth, the Motion seeks sanctions against Ramiro Rangel, a current employee of Plaintiff.
See Motion. Mr. Rangel is not a party to this suit.
3. The Motion contains fanciful and baseless allegations made without evidence by
Bitgood. Under Chapter 10 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, sanctions are appropriate if
the factual contentions lack evidentiary support or if a factual contention is unlikely to have evidentiary
support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. &
REM. CODE § 10.001(1) - (3). That standard is not met in this case.
4. The Plaintiff is a residential landlord who had a good faith basis in fact and law for
bringing this simple forcible detainer action (an eviction). The claims in the Eviction Petition have
evidentiary support and the plaintiff had a good faith basis for bringing this lawsuit. Evidentiary
support to demonstrate the good faith basis for filing this lawsuit was attached to the Petition
without objection and referenced herein so that the Court may immediately and conclusively
DENY the Bitgood’s Motion. That evidence includes:
A. Apartment Lease Contract – Section 6 states that rent is due without demand or offset of
the first day of each month. Section 32.2 states specifically that in the event of default the
Plaintiff may terminate the Defendant’s right to possession by delivery written notice to
vacate.
B. Notice to Vacate – Demonstrates that as of July 6, 2022, Defendant was in default for
failure to pay rent and other amounts owed in the amount of $2,261.98. This also
demonstrates that the Plaintiff exercised its right to terminate the Defendant’s right to
possession of the premises and that it did so in accordance with Texas law, thereby
establishing the elements and conditions precedent for a forcible detainer action.
5. These exhibits demonstrate factual support for the allegations contained in this
Petition and that the Plaintiff had a good faith basis for bringing this lawsuit. Thus, the standard
for sanctions has NOT been met and the Motion should be DENIED.
{151235/00459/01672319.DOCX 1 }
2
FACTUAL BACKGROUND ABOUT THE DEFENDANT AT THIS MOTION
6. The present Motion for Sanctions is simply without merit. The accusations
contained in the Motion are unsupported, unrelated to this current matter, the Bitgood and the
Defendants lack standing regarding the issues brought forth in the Motion and the Motion was not
brought in good faith or after due diligence. The Defendants are residents at the Plaintiff’s
apartment community. They defaulted under their lease for failing to pay rent and other amounts
owed and this eviction action was initiated after proper demand for possession was made by the
Plaintiff. There is no conspiracy to commit fraud upon the courts as alleged in the Motion.
7. This eviction was NOT filed for an improper purpose or in bad faith, but rather for
the legitimate business purpose of regaining possession of a leased premises from a nonpaying
tenant so that it can be relet to a paying tenant.
8. The Lease governed the Defendant’s occupancy at the Plaintiff’s apartment
community. See Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s Petition. The Defendants failed to pay rent and other
amounts and was in default of the lease. See Exhibit 2. This default entitled the Plaintiff to send
a notice to vacate, which they did. See Exhibits 1 and 2. The Defendants failed to vacate after
receiving the notice the vacate and the elements of forcible detainer were met and all conditions
precedent to filing this lawsuit were satisfied. See Tex. Prop. Code § 24.002 and 005.1
9. The Plaintiff requests that this Court DENY the Motion.
STANDARDS FOR SANCTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN MET
10. A pleading or motion is signed in violation of Section 10.001 if it is presented for
an improper purpose, if each claim or other legal contention in the pleading is not warranted by
{151235/00459/01672319.DOCX 1 }
3
existing law or by a nonfrivolous arguendo the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law,
or if its factual contentions lack evidentiary support or if a specifically identified allegation or
factual contention is unlikely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further
investigation or discovery. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 10.001(1) - (3). This standard
has not been met because no sanctionable conduct has occurred. For the reasons stated above and
elsewhere in this Response, the Motion should be denied.
ATTORNEYS’ FEES
11. The Court may award a party who prevails on a motion for sanctions the reasonable
expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred in presenting or defending the motion. See Tex. Civ. Prac.
& Rem. Code § 10.002. The Plaintiff has incurred reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees,
as a result of the Defendant’s baseless Motion for Sanctions.
12. The Motion does not identify which alleged factual allegation is false or likely to
be without evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for investigation and discovery. See
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 10.001.
13. In sum, no specific factual allegation is identified that is allegedly without
evidentiary support and no evidence is provided to support the bare, conclusory allegations of
“fraud upon the court.” The Motion is brough in bad faith, to harass, and without due diligence.
The Plaintiff is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in defending this
Motion.
14. In support of their claim for attorneys’ fees, the Plaintiff attaches hereto Exhibit A,
which is the affidavit of the undersigned attorney who has previously been identified as an expert
{151235/00459/01672319.DOCX 1 }
4
in this case on the issue of attorneys’ fees. Pursuant to Exhibit A, the Plaintiff seeks recovery of
$3,300.00 in reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees.
CONCLUSION
15. Sanctions are not proper because the allegations in the Petition have evidentiary
support and were not brought for improper purposes. The good-faith nature of the petition and the
factual allegations contained therein is conclusively proven by the attachments to this Response.
16. Although the Petition by the Plaintiff was brought in good faith, the Motion for
Sanctions by Bitgood was not. The Motion contains fanciful, vague, and conclusory statements
of fraud and perjury but fails to specify which allegation was brought without the likelihood of
evidentiary support. Further, the Motion provides no evidence to support its claims. This Court
can and should award attorneys’ fees to the Plaintiff simply in the context of being a prevailing
party on a Motion for Sanctions.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff, IMPERIAL LOFTS LLC, requests
that the Court DENY Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions, award the Plaintiff its reasonable and
necessary attorneys’ fees as requested herein. Plaintiff also prays for such other and further relief
to which they may be justly entitled, whether special or general, or at law or in equity.
{151235/00459/01672319.DOCX 1 }
5
Respectfully submitted,
HOOVER SLOVACEK LLP
By: /s/ James V. Nguyen_______
James V. Nguyen
State Bar No. 24110159
nguyen@hooverslovacek.com
Galleria Tower II
5051 Westheimer, Suite 1200
Houston, Texas 77056
Telephone: (713) 977-8686
Fax: (713) 977-5395
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
{151235/00459/01672319.DOCX 1 }
6
EXHIBIT A
{151235/00459/01672319.DOCX 1 }
7
CAUSE NO. 22-CCV0071418
IMPERIAL LOFTS, LLC § IN THE COUNTY CIVIL COURT
Plaintiff §
§
v. §
§ AT LAW NO. ONE (1)
SETH RICHARD GUTIERREZ, §
CHRISTOPHER TURNER AND ALL §
OCCUPANTS §
Defendants § FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES V. NGUYEN
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF HARRIS §
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared James V.
Nguyen, attorney for Plaintiff in the above-entitled and numbered cause, who, being first duly
sworn by me, says and deposes as follows, to-wit:
1. My name is James V. Nguyen. I am the attorney for IMPERIAL LOFTS, LLC
(“Plaintiff”) in this matter. I am above the age of twenty-one (21). I have never
been convicted of a felony and I am competent to make this Affidavit. I have
personal knowledge of all the facts stated in this Affidavit and am in all respects
qualified to make the same. Further, I swear under penalty of perjury that the
contents of this Affidavit are true and correct.
2. I maintain an office for the practice of law at 5051 Westheimer, Ste. 1200, Houston,
Harris County, Texas. I am an attorney with the law firm HooverSlovacek, LLP. I
am the attorney responsible for this file, and I am personally familiar with its
contents and the actual time expended thereon. I have previously represented
clients in connection with this type of claim. I am familiar with the attorneys’ fees
customarily charged by attorneys in Fort Bend County, Texas for handling suits on
these types of claims and am familiar with the attorneys’ services required for the
proper prosecution of suits founded upon similar claims.
{151235/00459/01672319.DOCX 1 }
8
3. In connection with representing the Plaintiff in this eviction matter, the following
services have been rendered on behalf of Plaintiff with respect specifically to
responding to the Motion for Sanction:
• Review of Lease, documents evidencing default, and notice
to vacate;
• Review of previous eviction suit and other lawsuits and
complaints filed by Bitgood;
• Conference with client to learn extent of Bitgood’s
harassment of Imperial Lofts and its employees;
• Research and review standard for sanctions under Texas law;
• Draft and revise Response to Motion for Sanctions;
• Receipt and review of numerous filings by Defendant and
counsel for Defendant’s representative;
• Draft and revise affidavit if support of Response;
• Draft and revise proposed order; and
• Communicate with client regarding response and strategy.
4. Each and all of the above-described services, together with those services
reasonably anticipated, are reasonable and necessary to respond to the Motion for
Sanctions. Similarly, action taken in Response to the Motion for Sanctions could
have and should have been easily avoided given the baseless nature of the Motion.
5. In addition to the foregoing, Plaintiff’s attorney also takes into consideration:
a. the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and the
skill requisite to perform the legal services properly;
b. the likelihood that the acceptance of the particular
employment would preclude other employment by the firm;
c. the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal
services;
d. the dollar amount involved, and the results obtained;
e. the time limitations imposed by the client or the
circumstances;
f. the nature and length of the professional relationship with
the client; and
g. the experience, reputation and ability of the firm.
6. As of the date of this filing, the Plaintiff has incurred a total of $1,960.00 in
attorneys’ fees in research and drafting this Response. This is seven hours at my
{151235/00459/01672319.DOCX 1 }
9
current rate. I anticipate an additional 4 hours will be billed in order to prepare for
d attend the hearing on this matter. My hourly rate is currently $280.00 per hour.
Based on the foregoing estimates and the time already spent on this Response, the
total reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in asserting the Plaintiff’s
Response to the Motion for Sanctions will be a total of $3,080.00 if this motion is
granted. In my opinion, in light of my experience on matters of this type, the actual
time expended to date, and the other factors outlined above, this is a reasonable and
ecessary amount of attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in prosecuting this
action
“For any post judgment and appeal motions, should they become necessary, my
estimate is that additional attorneys’ fees will be incurred as follows: For any
appeal by the Defendant, my estimate is for $20,000 for preparing a brief with the
Court of Appeals, and any motions for extensions of time. It is my opinion that
such an amount is reasonable and necessary. For oral argument on the briefs, my
estimate is $15,000. It is my opinion that such an amount is reasonable and
necessary. For responding to or filing any (and each) motion for rehearing or
rehearing en banc, my estimate is for $15,000. It is my opinion that such an amount
is reasonable and necessary. For any petition for review to the Texas Supreme
Court, or response, my estimate is $20,000. It is my opinion that this amount is
reasonable and necessary. For a brief on the merits, or a response, my estimate is
$32,500. It is my opinion that such an amount is reasonable and necessary. For a
reply brief on the merits, my estimate is for $5,000. It is my opinion that this
amount is reasonable and necessary. For preparing for and attending oral argument
to the Texas Supreme Court, my estimate is $18,000. It is my opinion that this
amount is reasonable and necessary. For a motion for rehearing or response to the
Texas Supreme Court, my estimate is for $15,000. It is my opinion that this amount
is reasonable and necessary.
Further Affiant sayeth not.
EXECUTED this
Nguyen.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this the th day of July, 2023, a true and correct copy of foregoing
document was served in the manner specified to:
Via E serve
Holly Crampton
Law office of Holly Crampton
10900 NW Frwy, Suite 102
Houston, Texas 77092
holly@hollycramptonlaw.com
TTORNEY FOR ETH UTIERREZ
Via E serve
Michael Bitgood
503 FM 359, Suite 130
Richmond, Texas 77406
eastprolaw@msn.com
Via E Serve, CMRRR and First Class Mail
Christopher Turner
504 Live Oak Street
Panama City, Florida 32404
Stateofmind36@gmail.com
EFENDANT
By: /s/ James V. Nguyen
James V. Nguyen
{151235/00459/01672319.DOCX 1 }
Preview
CAUSE NO. IMPERIAL LOFTS, LLC IN THE COUNTY CIVIL COURT laintiff AT LAW NO. ONE (1) SETH RICHARD GUTIERREZ, CHRISTOPHER TURNER AND ALL OCCUPANTS Defendants FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS SECOND AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COME NOW, Plaintiff, IMPERIAL LOFTS “Plaintiff” or Landlord ), and file this its Second Amended Response to Michael Bitgood’s (“Bitgood”) Motion for Sanctions, states as UMMARY OF ESPONSE Bitgood’s Motion for Sanctions, joined in by Seth Gutierrez, (the “Motion”) is without merit and contains bad faith allegations meant for the purposes of harassment. The Plaintiff is entitled to recover “the reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred in . . . opposing [this] motion.” See EM ODE § 10.002(c e Motion seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and four parties. First, Bitgood seeks sanctions against Hoover Slovacek LLP the law firm representing Plaintiff. See Motion. Second, the Motion seeks sanctions against Nolan Real Estate (“Nolan”) for conspiracy to “perpetuate fraud upon the courts.” See Motion Nolan is not a party to this suit. Third, the Motion seeks sanctions against Marianna Sullivan. See Motion. Ms. Sullivan is not a party to the {151235/00459/01672319.DOCX 1 } suit. Fourth, the Motion seeks sanctions against Ramiro Rangel, a current employee of Plaintiff. See Motion. Mr. Rangel is not a party to this suit. 3. The Motion contains fanciful and baseless allegations made without evidence by Bitgood. Under Chapter 10 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, sanctions are appropriate if the factual contentions lack evidentiary support or if a factual contention is unlikely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 10.001(1) - (3). That standard is not met in this case. 4. The Plaintiff is a residential landlord who had a good faith basis in fact and law for bringing this simple forcible detainer action (an eviction). The claims in the Eviction Petition have evidentiary support and the plaintiff had a good faith basis for bringing this lawsuit. Evidentiary support to demonstrate the good faith basis for filing this lawsuit was attached to the Petition without objection and referenced herein so that the Court may immediately and conclusively DENY the Bitgood’s Motion. That evidence includes: A. Apartment Lease Contract – Section 6 states that rent is due without demand or offset of the first day of each month. Section 32.2 states specifically that in the event of default the Plaintiff may terminate the Defendant’s right to possession by delivery written notice to vacate. B. Notice to Vacate – Demonstrates that as of July 6, 2022, Defendant was in default for failure to pay rent and other amounts owed in the amount of $2,261.98. This also demonstrates that the Plaintiff exercised its right to terminate the Defendant’s right to possession of the premises and that it did so in accordance with Texas law, thereby establishing the elements and conditions precedent for a forcible detainer action. 5. These exhibits demonstrate factual support for the allegations contained in this Petition and that the Plaintiff had a good faith basis for bringing this lawsuit. Thus, the standard for sanctions has NOT been met and the Motion should be DENIED. {151235/00459/01672319.DOCX 1 } 2 FACTUAL BACKGROUND ABOUT THE DEFENDANT AT THIS MOTION 6. The present Motion for Sanctions is simply without merit. The accusations contained in the Motion are unsupported, unrelated to this current matter, the Bitgood and the Defendants lack standing regarding the issues brought forth in the Motion and the Motion was not brought in good faith or after due diligence. The Defendants are residents at the Plaintiff’s apartment community. They defaulted under their lease for failing to pay rent and other amounts owed and this eviction action was initiated after proper demand for possession was made by the Plaintiff. There is no conspiracy to commit fraud upon the courts as alleged in the Motion. 7. This eviction was NOT filed for an improper purpose or in bad faith, but rather for the legitimate business purpose of regaining possession of a leased premises from a nonpaying tenant so that it can be relet to a paying tenant. 8. The Lease governed the Defendant’s occupancy at the Plaintiff’s apartment community. See Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s Petition. The Defendants failed to pay rent and other amounts and was in default of the lease. See Exhibit 2. This default entitled the Plaintiff to send a notice to vacate, which they did. See Exhibits 1 and 2. The Defendants failed to vacate after receiving the notice the vacate and the elements of forcible detainer were met and all conditions precedent to filing this lawsuit were satisfied. See Tex. Prop. Code § 24.002 and 005.1 9. The Plaintiff requests that this Court DENY the Motion. STANDARDS FOR SANCTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN MET 10. A pleading or motion is signed in violation of Section 10.001 if it is presented for an improper purpose, if each claim or other legal contention in the pleading is not warranted by {151235/00459/01672319.DOCX 1 } 3 existing law or by a nonfrivolous arguendo the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or if its factual contentions lack evidentiary support or if a specifically identified allegation or factual contention is unlikely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 10.001(1) - (3). This standard has not been met because no sanctionable conduct has occurred. For the reasons stated above and elsewhere in this Response, the Motion should be denied. ATTORNEYS’ FEES 11. The Court may award a party who prevails on a motion for sanctions the reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred in presenting or defending the motion. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 10.002. The Plaintiff has incurred reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, as a result of the Defendant’s baseless Motion for Sanctions. 12. The Motion does not identify which alleged factual allegation is false or likely to be without evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for investigation and discovery. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 10.001. 13. In sum, no specific factual allegation is identified that is allegedly without evidentiary support and no evidence is provided to support the bare, conclusory allegations of “fraud upon the court.” The Motion is brough in bad faith, to harass, and without due diligence. The Plaintiff is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in defending this Motion. 14. In support of their claim for attorneys’ fees, the Plaintiff attaches hereto Exhibit A, which is the affidavit of the undersigned attorney who has previously been identified as an expert {151235/00459/01672319.DOCX 1 } 4 in this case on the issue of attorneys’ fees. Pursuant to Exhibit A, the Plaintiff seeks recovery of $3,300.00 in reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees. CONCLUSION 15. Sanctions are not proper because the allegations in the Petition have evidentiary support and were not brought for improper purposes. The good-faith nature of the petition and the factual allegations contained therein is conclusively proven by the attachments to this Response. 16. Although the Petition by the Plaintiff was brought in good faith, the Motion for Sanctions by Bitgood was not. The Motion contains fanciful, vague, and conclusory statements of fraud and perjury but fails to specify which allegation was brought without the likelihood of evidentiary support. Further, the Motion provides no evidence to support its claims. This Court can and should award attorneys’ fees to the Plaintiff simply in the context of being a prevailing party on a Motion for Sanctions. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff, IMPERIAL LOFTS LLC, requests that the Court DENY Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions, award the Plaintiff its reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees as requested herein. Plaintiff also prays for such other and further relief to which they may be justly entitled, whether special or general, or at law or in equity. {151235/00459/01672319.DOCX 1 } 5 Respectfully submitted, HOOVER SLOVACEK LLP By: /s/ James V. Nguyen_______ James V. Nguyen State Bar No. 24110159 nguyen@hooverslovacek.com Galleria Tower II 5051 Westheimer, Suite 1200 Houston, Texas 77056 Telephone: (713) 977-8686 Fax: (713) 977-5395 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF {151235/00459/01672319.DOCX 1 } 6 EXHIBIT A {151235/00459/01672319.DOCX 1 } 7 CAUSE NO. 22-CCV0071418 IMPERIAL LOFTS, LLC § IN THE COUNTY CIVIL COURT Plaintiff § § v. § § AT LAW NO. ONE (1) SETH RICHARD GUTIERREZ, § CHRISTOPHER TURNER AND ALL § OCCUPANTS § Defendants § FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES V. NGUYEN THE STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF HARRIS § BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared James V. Nguyen, attorney for Plaintiff in the above-entitled and numbered cause, who, being first duly sworn by me, says and deposes as follows, to-wit: 1. My name is James V. Nguyen. I am the attorney for IMPERIAL LOFTS, LLC (“Plaintiff”) in this matter. I am above the age of twenty-one (21). I have never been convicted of a felony and I am competent to make this Affidavit. I have personal knowledge of all the facts stated in this Affidavit and am in all respects qualified to make the same. Further, I swear under penalty of perjury that the contents of this Affidavit are true and correct. 2. I maintain an office for the practice of law at 5051 Westheimer, Ste. 1200, Houston, Harris County, Texas. I am an attorney with the law firm HooverSlovacek, LLP. I am the attorney responsible for this file, and I am personally familiar with its contents and the actual time expended thereon. I have previously represented clients in connection with this type of claim. I am familiar with the attorneys’ fees customarily charged by attorneys in Fort Bend County, Texas for handling suits on these types of claims and am familiar with the attorneys’ services required for the proper prosecution of suits founded upon similar claims. {151235/00459/01672319.DOCX 1 } 8 3. In connection with representing the Plaintiff in this eviction matter, the following services have been rendered on behalf of Plaintiff with respect specifically to responding to the Motion for Sanction: • Review of Lease, documents evidencing default, and notice to vacate; • Review of previous eviction suit and other lawsuits and complaints filed by Bitgood; • Conference with client to learn extent of Bitgood’s harassment of Imperial Lofts and its employees; • Research and review standard for sanctions under Texas law; • Draft and revise Response to Motion for Sanctions; • Receipt and review of numerous filings by Defendant and counsel for Defendant’s representative; • Draft and revise affidavit if support of Response; • Draft and revise proposed order; and • Communicate with client regarding response and strategy. 4. Each and all of the above-described services, together with those services reasonably anticipated, are reasonable and necessary to respond to the Motion for Sanctions. Similarly, action taken in Response to the Motion for Sanctions could have and should have been easily avoided given the baseless nature of the Motion. 5. In addition to the foregoing, Plaintiff’s attorney also takes into consideration: a. the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and the skill requisite to perform the legal services properly; b. the likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment would preclude other employment by the firm; c. the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; d. the dollar amount involved, and the results obtained; e. the time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; f. the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and g. the experience, reputation and ability of the firm. 6. As of the date of this filing, the Plaintiff has incurred a total of $1,960.00 in attorneys’ fees in research and drafting this Response. This is seven hours at my {151235/00459/01672319.DOCX 1 } 9 current rate. I anticipate an additional 4 hours will be billed in order to prepare for d attend the hearing on this matter. My hourly rate is currently $280.00 per hour. Based on the foregoing estimates and the time already spent on this Response, the total reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in asserting the Plaintiff’s Response to the Motion for Sanctions will be a total of $3,080.00 if this motion is granted. In my opinion, in light of my experience on matters of this type, the actual time expended to date, and the other factors outlined above, this is a reasonable and ecessary amount of attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in prosecuting this action “For any post judgment and appeal motions, should they become necessary, my estimate is that additional attorneys’ fees will be incurred as follows: For any appeal by the Defendant, my estimate is for $20,000 for preparing a brief with the Court of Appeals, and any motions for extensions of time. It is my opinion that such an amount is reasonable and necessary. For oral argument on the briefs, my estimate is $15,000. It is my opinion that such an amount is reasonable and necessary. For responding to or filing any (and each) motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc, my estimate is for $15,000. It is my opinion that such an amount is reasonable and necessary. For any petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court, or response, my estimate is $20,000. It is my opinion that this amount is reasonable and necessary. For a brief on the merits, or a response, my estimate is $32,500. It is my opinion that such an amount is reasonable and necessary. For a reply brief on the merits, my estimate is for $5,000. It is my opinion that this amount is reasonable and necessary. For preparing for and attending oral argument to the Texas Supreme Court, my estimate is $18,000. It is my opinion that this amount is reasonable and necessary. For a motion for rehearing or response to the Texas Supreme Court, my estimate is for $15,000. It is my opinion that this amount is reasonable and necessary. Further Affiant sayeth not. EXECUTED this Nguyen. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this the th day of July, 2023, a true and correct copy of foregoing document was served in the manner specified to: Via E serve Holly Crampton Law office of Holly Crampton 10900 NW Frwy, Suite 102 Houston, Texas 77092 holly@hollycramptonlaw.com TTORNEY FOR ETH UTIERREZ Via E serve Michael Bitgood 503 FM 359, Suite 130 Richmond, Texas 77406 eastprolaw@msn.com Via E Serve, CMRRR and First Class Mail Christopher Turner 504 Live Oak Street Panama City, Florida 32404 Stateofmind36@gmail.com EFENDANT By: /s/ James V. Nguyen James V. Nguyen {151235/00459/01672319.DOCX 1 }