Preview
CAUSE NO.
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT
MANAGEMENT, INC.
PRECINCT 5 PLACE 1
LCG HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Plaintiff International Communications Management, Inc. (ICM) files this Original
Petition against defendant LCG and shows the Court the following:
I
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This court has jurisdiction and venue is proper in Harris County, Texas because this
is the county in which the cause of action described in this Petition occurred in whole or in
part.
PARTIES AND SERVICE
Plaintiff is a corporation doing business in the State of Texas. Defendant is a
business or corporation and may be served with citation by certified mail return receipt
requested by serving its chief executive officer, Ken Tisdel at 306 Morton Street, 2°’ Floor
in Historic Exchange Hotel, Richmond, Texas 77469 or any other place where Defendant
may be found.
FACTS
Plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement in which plaintiff agreed to
provide technical services to defendant and defendant agreed to pay for said services,
Plaintiff has made demand for payment, but defendant has refused to pay the full amount
due. As such, plaintiff has been forced to bring suit for breach of contract.
BREACH OF CONTRACT
The parties entered into a valid, enforceable contract. Defendant breached that
agreement by failing to pay for services rendered. Defendant's breach has caused
damage to plaintiff.
DAMAGES
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of contract, Plaintiff has
suffered the following damages:
1 Actual damages in the amount of $3,000;
Attorney's fees of $1000;
Costs of suit, including but not limited to any court costs associated with
filing and/or prosecuting this action;
Prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and
All other relief, in law and in equity, to which Plaintiffs may be entitled.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully prays that
Defendant LCG be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon a final hearing of the
cause, judgment be entered for Plaintiff against Defendant, for damages in an amount
within the jurisdictional limits of the Court, together with pre-judgment interest (from the
date of injury through the date of judgment) at the maximum rate allowed by law; post-
judgment interest at the legal rate; costs of court; and such other and further relief to
which Plaintiffs may be entitled at law or in equity.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTTED
Vt Mom
Esther Cortez Treneer
Texas State Bar No. 04844900
5850 San Felipe, Ste. 500
Houston, Texas 77057
713-337-0164
esther @corteztreneerlaw.com
ESTHER CORTEZ TRENEER
Attomey Mediator
5850 San Felipe, Suite 500
Houston, Texas 77057
Phone: 713
Fax: 713
sther@ corteztreneerlaw.com
October 18
Civil Clerk for
Justice of the Peace
Precinct 5, Place 1
Harris County, Texas
RE: Cause No International Communications Management Inc. v. LCG
Dear Clerk
is to request service of citation by certified mail on defendant CEO Ken Tisdel at 306
Morton Street, 2. Floor in Historic Exchange Hotel, Richmond, Texas 77469. I am submitting
the required $15 fee with this filing. Thank you.
Very Tnuly Y ours
Esther Cortez Treneer
Esther Cortez T eneer
oie
sk
>
een
VS
Defendant > | Clo
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
case# QIS10024 12492
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ON THIS Iq DAY OF Octo b on 202 |
I HAVE DELIVERED A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF
(document/filing) Dorot Caim Citation
BY: (means of delivery) Carkified Mai
TO THE FOLLOWING:
1
T CWek Execctive URS elles a(t
1 fo) aa PV) ee edt)oa
Ken isde\ i Offi an : o Ba
NAME ir CMC eee
OFFICIAL USE
ae
206 Agcton Sweet £
Sree Qed cov \Cer
Astovic. Exchany Fi is. .
Rdamond TX TIUCH ‘afanm vices & Fees (check
Receipt hardcopy)
ChRetum Receipt (electronic)
bar, ‘ad
coe 8.
8.
Llocrtied tail Restictod Detvery
CITY STATE ZIP Dladut signature Required $ _—___
CoAdutt signature Restricted Delivery $.
10\4_2410 0002 2US4 A404 RedPostage and Fees
CERTIFIED RECEIPT NUMBER
[Sent To
Oo Bat
06
en Medel
nS 2 lr, i, an
‘Stale,
Pee ren Bocce
Sworn and Subscribed before me this \q ” day of October ZO2| .
Wntsaey, Ny
ws s
yw E M4,
\ reeteeas,
SS CIN cr QS
oS) AgeCOF the Court [Notary Public
fo
PLACE wid
%,, COUN
THAW we
mw
EL
Judge Israel B. Garcia, Jr.
Jee U.S. POSTAGE
>> PITNEY 80WES
Justice of the Peace, Precinct 5 Place 1
CS ESS
eS.
% 6000 Chimney Rock, Suite 102 pee
louston, Texas
7OL5 2970 OO02 2454 9921 ze 77081 § O07.53°
eee 0000359126
0CT 26 2021
- - 4
—— i ~
NGERS OMPANIES INC.
Marvy A. Finger
99 Detering St., Suite 200 et
Houston TX 77007
2161002881 2
- RT
ae —— naan =
-
od =H
Ei
~ ey
Janta)
id = oN MAEM te) Onur ONG i Wat Lesa toy Moyes tad igh
4 | Complete items 1, 2, and 3. ‘A. Signature
' B Print your name and address on the reverse 1 Agent
| ‘so that we can return the card to you.
x 1 Addressee
i Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, B. Received by (Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery
or on the front if space permits.
Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different from item 1? (1 Yes
wae If YES, enter delivery address below: CNo
Marvy A. Finger
99 Detering St., Suite 200
‘ Houston TX 77007
- ~
i mu Hil Se ervi ice Type
it Signature
we
ion rity Mail Express®
gistered Mail™
fa
it Signature Restricted Delivery ‘Registered Mait Restricted
9590 9402 4535 8278 9483 97 Certified Mail Restricted Delivery 1 Return Receipt for
Collect on Delivery
> Arfinla, Niemhar [Troncfar fram sandnn Inbal O Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 0 gna Confrmation™*
oy 2970 gO002 2454 3911. O Insured Mail ‘Signature Confirmation
1 Inured Mail Restcted Delvery Restric livery
PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9063 TIE \NOISAAL _Domestic Return Receipt +
- -
a e ae a wo ee ee ~ aa —— we ao
Proposal to LCG for System Administration Services
1/29/2021
Phase 1: Discovery y Dereck Senter (Minimum 4 hours not to exceed 8 hours) $150 per hour
Login and check Kasaya against asset tracking list, to include Servers.
Verify AntiVirus
Login and check Sonicwall Firewall.
Check Synology backup.
Phase 2: Establish Best Practice System Admin Procedures oday timate O hours not to exceed 40
hours, will give closer estimate after phase 1) $150 per hour
velop plan to Virtualize server
Go over Office365.
Ensure Kasaya is deployed to all assets.
Develop plan to enhance backup capability.
Phase 3: Ongoing Administrative Services ( oday estimate 10 hours per week will give closer estimate
after phase 1 ) $65 per hour
Perform Backups
Manage software patch process
All other weekly system admin and maintenance tasks
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION § IN THE JUSTICE COURT
MANAGEMENT, INC.
§ PCTS5-PL1
LCG, LLC § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES and
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
LCG, LLC., (hereinafter referred to herein as “LCG” and files this Original Answer,
Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
I. GENERAL DENIAL and VERIFICATION
1 LCG, LLC., pursuant to Tex. R Civ. P. 91 denies each and every plural and singular
the allegations set on the Plaintiff's Original Petition and demands strict proof thereof.
1.(A). LCG pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 93 by verification affirmatively states: That the
written instrument upon which a pleading (Plaintiffs Pleading) is founded is without consideration,
Il. FACTS
2 On or about January 29, 2021 LCG approached International Communication
Management, LLC., (hereinafter “Plaintiff’), to obtain IT services for LCG’s computer/servers. A
copy of the ICM’s proposal is attached hereto as Exhibit | and is incorporated for all purposes as it
set out verbatim herein and which describes the “Scope of the Work” to be performed by Plaintiff
for the benefit of LCG. Written e:mails by LCG were exchanged concerning billing issues, work
alleged to be completed by Plaintiff, work not completed by Plaintiff. Billing hourly rates, man-
hours to complete work alleged completed did not support work done vs. work not done and hours
performed vs. amounts billed which did not support actual hours performed and actual work
completed for alleged work performed by Plaintiff. Deliverables alleged to have been performed by
Plaintiffs were not and billed amounts exceeded the alleged work completed by Plaintiffs as set out
in Phase | and Phase 2 in the invitation to negotiate. This is a quantum meruit case wherein a
reasonable sum of money to be paid for services rendered or work done when the amount due
is not stipulated in a legally enforceable contract!
Ill. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
2 LCG, LLC, pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P files the following Affirmative Defenses
pursuant to Rule 94 Tex. R. Civ. Procedure.
Promissory estoppel: Plaintiff promised LCG that Plaintiff would provide the
“bargained for exchange (consideration) but did not which negatively affected LCG;
Equitable estoppel: LCG was misled by Plaintiff's representation of its abilities to
perform or subsequent refusal to perform the balance of its contractual obligations
to LCG. Plaintiff misrepresented its abilities to perform/refusal to complete its
contractual obligations to LCG;
Failure of Consideration: Plaintiff failed to perform its contractually required
obligations to LCG resulting in a substantial failure of consideration and therefore
Fraud: Plaintiff represented that it had performed its obligations pursuant to its offer
to LCG and expected defendant to pay Plaintiff for its partial performance;
(e) Conditions precedent not completed;
() Defendant asserts the affirmative defense of Offset;
(g) Defendant asserts the affirmative defense of unconscionability; and
(h) Defendant asserts Quantum Meruit as Plaintiff's only means of recovery, if any.
@ Plaintiff is not entitled to recovery of its attorney’s fees.
IV. FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION
3 Defendant would further show that there was a failure of consideration with respect
to the agreement on which Plaintiff's lawsuit is based.
V. FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT
4 Defendant would further show that a false promise or representation was made by
Plaintiff on which Defendant reasonably relied in entering into the agreement on which Plaintiff's
lawsuit is based. Bernal v. Garrison, 818 S.W.2d 79 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi 1991, writ denied);
Cecil v. Zively, 683 S.W.2d 853 (Tex.App. - Houston [14th D.] 1984, no writ).
5 Defendant therefore avers that any such agreement was therefore void ab initio and
EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL
6. LCG would further show that Plaintiff falsely represented or concealed a material
fact, of which Plaintiff had knowledge, with the intention that LCG act thereupon. LCG did not
know the truth in this regard, and was induced by such misrepresentation and/or concealment to enter
into the agreement on which Plaintiff's lawsuit is based. LCG therefore pleads the affirmative
OFFSET
7
LCG would further show that it is entitled to offset from Plaintiffagainst any recovery
that may be awarded to Plaintiff by reason its offer to settle this matter for $1,000.00.
VIOLATIONS OF DTPA
8 LCG further pleads as an affirmative defense that the violations of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Section 17.41, et seq., operate as a bar to recovery by Plaintiff
in this
DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES
9 LCG would show that Plaintiff engaged in certain false, misleading and deceptive
acts, practices and/or omissions actionable under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices - Consumer
Protection Act (Texas Business and Commerce Code, Chapter 17.41, et seq.), as alleged herein
10. Unconscionable Action or Course of Action. Plaintiffengaged in an "unconscionable
action or course of action" to the detriment of Defendant as that term is defined by Section 17.45(5)
of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, by taking advantage intentionally misleading Defendant
via their presentation of the “Scope of Work” which Plaintiff represented that it would perform on
behalf LCG, which “work” was not performed as agreed , nor was the ability, experience or capacity
of the Plaintiff as represented to LCG. Plaintiff's course of conduct was a complete
misrepresentation to LCG of its experience and capacity to perform the “Scope of Work” to a
grossly unfair degree.
11. Violations of Section 17.46(b). Plaintiff violated Section 17.46(b) of the Texas
Business and Commerce Code, in that Plaintiff:
(a) caused confusion or misunderstanding as to the source, of its services;
(b) represented that Plaintiff's services have characteristics, uses, benefits, or qualities
which they did not have;
(c) represented that services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, but were in
(d) represented that an agreement confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations
which it did not have or which were not performed as represented to LCG;
(e) knowingly made false or misleading statements of fact concerning the need for
() represented that work or services have been performed on, or parts replaced in,
LCG’s computers, servers when the work or services were not performed or the parts
replaced or upgraded;
(g) failed to disclose information concerning goods or services which was known at the
time of the transaction with the intention to induce the consumer into a transaction into
which the consumer would not have entered had the information been disclosed, i.e. (h)
performing work not required or by performing work which was not requested;
@ made false or misleading statements of fact concerning the reasons for, existence of,
G) based a charge for the repair of any item in whole or in part on a guaranty or warranty
instead of on the value of the actual repairs made or work to be performed on the item
without stating separately the charges for the work and the charge for the warranty or
guaranty, if any.
12. Producing Cause. LCG would show that the acts, practices and/or omissions
complained of were the producing cause of LCG’s damages more fully described herein
13. Reliance. LCG would further show the acts, practices and/or omissions complained
of under Section 17.46(b) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code were relied upon by
Defendant to LCG's detriment.
COMMON LAW FRAUD
14. LCG further shows that Plaintiff made material false representations to LCG with the
knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard of the truth with the intention that such
representations be acted upon by LCG and LCG relied on these representations to its
15. LCG would further show that Plaintiff concealed or failed to disclose material facts
within the knowledge of Plaintiff, that Plaintiff knew that Defendant did not have knowledge
of the same and did not have equal opportunity to discover the truth, and that Plaintiff
intended to induce the other party to enter into the transaction made the basis of this suit by
16. As a proximate result of such fraud, LCG sustained the damages described
more fully herein below.
COMMON LAW FRAUD
17. LCG would further show that the false representations and/or promises of
Plaintiff constitute actual fraud in LCG’s contractual acceptance of Plaintiff's “Scope of
Work” offered to LCG.
18. LCG is therefore entitled to recover from Plaintiff actual damages described
more fully herein below, i.e. work not performed by Plaintiff resulting in LCG’s increased
costs caused by Plaintiff's failure to perform its contractual obligations to LCG; reasonable
and necessary attorneys fees incurred in defense of the specious work not performed by
Plaintiff; expert witness fees, costs for copies of depositions, and costs of court.
NEGLIGENCE
19. In the course of the transactions between Plaintiff and LCG, Plaintiff owed
LCG a duty to perform in a professional manner pursuant to Plaintiff's “Scope of the Work”
it represented it would perform and complete as it represented to LCG.
20. LCG would show that Plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care in performing
its contractual obligations to LCG. The acts and/omissions of Plaintiffas described herein
above by which Plaintiff breached such duty constitute a proximate cause of the damages of
LCG as described herein above, for which Plaintiff
is liable to LCG.
NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
21. LCG would show that Plaintiff during the course of its work for LCG supplied
false information in the course of their business/profession or in the course of a transaction
in which Plaintiff has a pecuniary interest, and that such information was inaccurately and/or
misrepresented by Plaintiff for the guidance of LCG in the bargained for exchange
performed by Plaintiff described herein above. Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care
or competence in obtaining/communicating or performing the work which it was obligated
to perform on behalf
of LCG. LCG avers that LCG suffered pecuniary loss, described more
fully herein above, which was proximately caused by Defendant and justifiably relied upon
by LCG.
22. LCG therefore asserts a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation
against Plaintiff, as provided by Federal Land Bank Association of Tyler v. Sloane, 825
S.W.2d 439 (Tex. 1991).
BREACH OF CONTRACT
23. LCG would further show that the actions and/or omissions of Plaintiff
described herein above constitute breach of contract, which proximately caused the direct
and consequential damages of LCG described herein above, and for which LCG hereby sues.
ACTUAL DAMAGES
24. LCG sustained the following actual damages as a result of the actions and/or
(a) Out-of-pocket expenses incurred by LCG to hire third party to complete
(b) Loss of use, including but not limited to the reasonable rental value of a
(c) Lost profits.
(d) LCG’s Loss of benefit of the bargain
(e) Loss of credit and damage to credit reputation.
() Interest and/or finance charges assessed against and paid by Defendant[s]
(g) Loss of the "benefit of the bargain" by LCG;
(h) LCG’s costs of completion;.
@ Remedial costs;
G) Reasonable and necessary engineering or consulting fees.
MULTIPLE DAMAGES
25. As alleged herein above, LCG would show that the false, misleading and
deceptive acts, practices and/or omissions complained of herein were committed
"knowingly" in that Plaintiff had actual awareness of the falsity, deception, or unfairness of
26. LCG further avers that such acts, practices, and/or omissions were committed
"intentionally" in that Plaintiff specifically intended that LCG act in detrimental reliance on
the falsity or deception or of the unfairness relating to the services not performed, the poor
quality of those services which were performed but were grossly misrepresented as to quality
of work and its incompletion, the prices avered by Plaintiff were for work which was not
27. Therefore, LCG is entitled to recover multiple damages as provided by
17.50(b)(1) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code.
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
28. LCG would further show that the acts and omissions complained of herein by
Plaintiff were committed knowingly, willfully, intentionally, with actual awareness, and with
the specific and predetermined intention of enriching said Plaintiffat the expense of LCG.
In order to punish said Plaintiff for such unconscionable overreaching and to deter such
actions and/or omissions in the future, LCG also seeks recovery from Plaintiff for exemplary
damages as provided by Section 41.003(1) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
and by Section 27.01 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code.
ATTORNEY'S FEES
29. Request is made for all costs and reasonable and necessary attorney's fees
LLCurred by or on behalf of LCG herein, LLCluding all fees necessary in the event of an
appeal of this cause to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Texas, as the Court
deems equitable and just, as provided by: (a) Section 17.50(d) of the Texas Business and
Commerce Code (b) Section 27.01(e) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code (c)
Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code (d) Section 37.009 of the Texas
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant, LCG, LLC, respectfully
prays that, upon a final hearing of this cause, the Plaintiff take nothing, and that judgment
be entered for the Defendant LCG against Plaintiff and for the economic/actual damages
requested herein above by way of counterclaim in an amount within the jurisdictional limits
of the Court, together with prejudgment and post judgment interest at the maximum rate
allowed by law attorney's fees, and that LCG be awarded costs of court and such other and
further relief to which LCG may be entitled at law or in equity, whether pled or unpled.
Law Offices of Charles C. Gregory III Law Offices of L. T. “Butch” Bradt
/s/ L.T. “Butch” Bradt
By: Charles C. Gregory III SBOT #02841600
TBN 08432500 14090 Southwest Freeway, Suite 300
P. O. Box 965 Sugar Land, Texas 77478
Simonton, TX 77476 (281) 201-0700
(713) 208-7200 Fax: (281) 201-1202
Attorney for Luz Oriente Numero 64 Attorney for Luz Oriente Numero 64
Itbradt@flash.net
STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF FORT BEND §
VERIFICATION
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Ken Tisdel, CEO,
LCG, LLC. who after being by me duly sworn, deposed as follows:
"My name is Ken Tisdel, CEO of LCG, LLC. I am at least 18 years of age and of
sound mind. I am personally acquainted with the facts alleged in the foregoing Original
Answer regarding the general denial, affirmative defenses, DTPA counterclaim, and with
Ken Tisdel-CEO-LCG, LLC.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME by Ken Tisdel, CEO-LCG,
LLC., to the undersigned notary public, on this the day of October, 2021 in the
County of Fort Bend, State of Texas.
Notary Public-State of Texas
SEAL/STAMP:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Thereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document has been efiled and elaw served to Ms. Esther Cortez
Treneer via e:mail to esther@corteztreneerlaw.com on this the 31st
day of October, 2021.
Charles C. Gregory II
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF FORT BEND §
VERIFICATION
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Ken Tisdel, CEO,
LCG, LLC. who after being by me duly sworn, deposed as follows:
"My name is Ken Tisdel, CEO of LCG, LLC. Iam at least 18 years of age and of
sound mind. I am personally acquainted with the facts alleged in the foregoing Original
Answer regarding the general denial, affirmative defenses, DTPA counterclaim, and with
respect to failure of consideration, w! are true and correct."
V
Ken Tisdel-CEO-LCG, LLC.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME by Ken Tisdel, CEO-LCG,
LLC., to the undersigned notary public, on this the 28 day of October, 2021 in the
County of Fort Bend, State of Texas.
LSU Ke KY ‘7 Af
(Notary Phibl tic3 fe of Xas
AN WiLULAMS
“Printed Name
SEAL/STAMP:
an MY, JENNIFER LYNN WILLIAMS
2 Notary Public, State of Texas
op § Comm. Expires 07-06-2022
ay Notary ID 131633534
seopaeemeeese
wes - 7 ~
p)=iy
18) 1s ele)
a oR eNO en RL ee eae Rea
x “L/(9 Te
™-Complete items 1, 2, and 3.
™ Print your name and address on the reverse
‘so that we can return the card to you.
cp
. °
@ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, i f7¢7
ery
{
or on the front if space permi
D. Is delivery addfess different from item 1? a lez
If YES, enter delivery address below: ~ [] No
Ken Tisdel, Chief Executive Officer
306 Morton Street, 24 Floor
Historic Exchange Hotel
Richmond TX 77469
———
co Type
TATE Mitt
rorty Mall Express®
ult Signat
jul Signature RstRéted Delivery. epistered Mail Restricted
certified Mall®
9590 9402 4535 8278 9484 03 Certified Mail Restricted Delivery 1 Retum Receipt for
O Collect on Dei
‘Article. Number. (Transfer. from service Jabel)._____ D Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery Dy grate Confirmation"
1D Insured Mait nature Confirmation
7019 2970 OO02 2454 4904 O aug Met Restricted negcen Restricted Delivery
PS Form'3814, July'2015 PSN
Tit
7530-02-000-9053 DIS \OODAT2 AL bess Ramm Roca
“neering
| WFAN
USPS TRACKING#
First-Class Mall
Postage & Fees Paid
USPS.
Permit No. G-10
9590 9402 4535 8278 9484 03
United States * Sender: Please print your-name, address, and ZIP+4° in this box®
Postal Service
Justice, fhe Force , Precinct
Se3 S Vo
cas. 6000 Chim Took , Suite WL
ee
Ss
ce Houston , Texas T1031
aoe
go
MAHAN ae Danna ebaed ad eat Dbedd tage beep
CAUSE NO.
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT
MANAGEMENT, INC.
PRECINCT 5 PLACE 1
LCG HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION
AND ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Plaintiff International Communications Management, Inc. (ICM) files this Original
Petition against defendant LCG and show the Court the following:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This court has jurisdiction and venue is proper in Harris County, Texas because this
is the county in which the cause of action described in this Petition occurred in whole or in
part.
PARTIES AND SERVICE
Plaintiff is a corporation doing business in the State of Texas. Defendant is a
business or corporation and may be served with citation by certified mail return receipt
requested by serving its chief executive officer, Ken Tisdel at 306 Morton Street, 2 Floor
in Historic Exchange Hotel, Richmond, Texas 77469 or any other place where Defendant
may be found.
FACTS
Plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement in which plaintiff agreed to
provide technical services to defendant and defendant agreed to pay for said services.
Plaintiff has made demand for payment, but defendant has refused to pay the full amount
due. As such, plaintiff has been forced to bring suit for breach of contract.
BREACH OF CONTRACT
The parties entered into a valid, enforceable contract. Defendant breached that
agreement by failing to pay for services rendered. Defendants breach has caused
damage laintiff.
QUANTUM MERUIT
Alternatively, plaintiff claims damages for quantum meruit. Defendant was charged
for only 20 hours of work, when 30 hours were actually worked, at a cost of $150 an
hour.
DAMAGES
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants breach of contract, Plaintiff has
suffered the following damages:
Actual damages in the amount of $3,000 for breach of contract, or
alternatively $4500 for quantum metuit.
Attorney’s fees of $1
Costs of suit, including but not limited to any court costs associated with
filing and/or prosecuting this action;
Prejudgment and post judgment interest; and
All other relief, in law and in equity, to which Plaintiffs may be entitled.
ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM
Plaintiff denies all the allegations contained in defendants counterclaim and
demands strict proof thereof.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully pray that
Defendant LCG be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon a final hearing of the
cause, judgment be entered for Plaintiff against Defendant, for damages in an amount
within the jurisdictional limits of the Court, together with pre judgment interest (from the
date of injury through the date of judgment) at the maximum rate allowed by law; post
judgment interest at the legal rate; costs of court; and such other and further relief to
which Plaintiffs may be entitled at law or in equity.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTTED
Ether Cortes, Tremeer
Esther Cortez Treneer
Texas State Bar No. 04844900
5850 San Felipe, Ste. 500
Houston, Texas 77057
713 0164
esther@corteztreneerlaw.com
Certificate of Service
| certify that this pleading has been efiled and served on opposing counsel on this
day of March, 2022.
Ether Cortes, Tremeer
Esther Cortez Treneer
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION § IN THE JUSTICE COURT
MANAGEMENT, INC.
§ PCTS5-PL1
LCG, LLC § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER.
PLEA TO JURISDICTION, PLEA OF PRIVILEGE
MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, and
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
LCG, LLC., (hereinafter referred to herein as “LCG” and files this First Amended Original
Answer, Plea to Jurisdiction, Plea of Privilege, Motion to Transfer Venue, Affirmative Defenses and
Counterclaims pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
I. PLEA TO JURISDICTION
PLEA TO JURISDICTION-AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY
GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 3 SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF TEXAS
TRIAL COURTS, § 3.03 SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION--AMOUNT IN
CONTROVERSY, § F--COUNTER CLAIMS, CROSS CLAIMS and THIRD PARTY CLAIMS
1 Defendant, LCG, L.L.C., after further consideration asserts that its counterclaim
damages exceed this honorable court’s maximum jurisdictional limits and therefore asserts its
Plea to Jurisdiction.
1.2. COUNTER CLAIMS, CROSS CLAIMS and THIRD PARTY CLAIMS are
judged on their own merits when determining an amount in controversy that is within the court’s
jurisdiction. ... If the amount sought exceeds the court’s monetary limit, the added claims belong
II. GENERAL DENIAL and VERIFICATION
2 LCG, LLC., pursuant to Tex. R Civ. P. 91 denies each and every plural and
singular the allegations set on the Plaintiff's Original Petition and demands strict proof thereof.
2.1 (A). LCG pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 93 by verification affirmatively states: That
the written instrument upon which a pleading (Plaintiff's Pleading) is founded is without
II. PLEA OF PRIVILEGE and MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
3 Plaintiff states in its First Amended Original Petition I. This ... “ venue is proper
in Harris County because this is the county in which the cause of action described in this Petition
occurred in whole or in part”. LCG objects to the plaintiff's choice of venue. Plaintiff's venue
statement is improper and incorrect. As a general rule, a suit in Justice Court must be brought in the
county and in the Justice of the Peace precinct in which the defendant resides; in the county and in
a Justice of the Peace precinct where the incident that gave rise to the claim occurred; the county and
Justice of the Peace precinct where the contract, if any, that gave rise to the claim was to be
performed; or the county and Justice of the Peace precinct where the property is located if the suit
is to recover personal property. Rule 502.4. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 15,
Subchapter E which contains a statutorily-created order of venue preferences and
procedural rules addressing the order and manner of raising an issue of proper venue, must be
followed by applying the following order, First, “Mandatory Rule” if applicable. Second,
Permissive Venue. The “General Rule” is not applicable if either Mandatory or Permissive Venue
applies. In this case the “General Venue Rule” which Plaintiff alleges applies is incorrect for the
reason that Permissive Venue Rule applies. The “Permissive Venue Rule” states that if no
“Mandatory Venue” exists Permissive Venue applies which allow certain defendants the “Privilege”
of being sued in a particular county, i.e., Fort Bend County, the county of the Defendant’s principle
office, “Permissive Venue”. Therefore, if no general, or mandatory venue provision controls, then
permissive venue provisions allow certain defendants the “privilege” of being sued in a particular
county. Pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 15.002 states If no mandatory or
general venue provision controls, the permissive venue provisions allow certain defendants the
privilege of being sued in a particular county. See also Texas Bus & Com Code §303.154. In this
case permissive venue applies.
IV. MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
4 Plaintiff's First Amended Original Petition asserting Harris County as venu
Preview
CAUSE NO. INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT MANAGEMENT, INC. PRECINCT 5 PLACE 1 LCG HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Plaintiff International Communications Management, Inc. (ICM) files this Original Petition against defendant LCG and shows the Court the following: I JURISDICTION AND VENUE This court has jurisdiction and venue is proper in Harris County, Texas because this is the county in which the cause of action described in this Petition occurred in whole or in part. PARTIES AND SERVICE Plaintiff is a corporation doing business in the State of Texas. Defendant is a business or corporation and may be served with citation by certified mail return receipt requested by serving its chief executive officer, Ken Tisdel at 306 Morton Street, 2°’ Floor in Historic Exchange Hotel, Richmond, Texas 77469 or any other place where Defendant may be found. FACTS Plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement in which plaintiff agreed to provide technical services to defendant and defendant agreed to pay for said services, Plaintiff has made demand for payment, but defendant has refused to pay the full amount due. As such, plaintiff has been forced to bring suit for breach of contract. BREACH OF CONTRACT The parties entered into a valid, enforceable contract. Defendant breached that agreement by failing to pay for services rendered. Defendant's breach has caused damage to plaintiff. DAMAGES As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of contract, Plaintiff has suffered the following damages: 1 Actual damages in the amount of $3,000; Attorney's fees of $1000; Costs of suit, including but not limited to any court costs associated with filing and/or prosecuting this action; Prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and All other relief, in law and in equity, to which Plaintiffs may be entitled. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully prays that Defendant LCG be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon a final hearing of the cause, judgment be entered for Plaintiff against Defendant, for damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of the Court, together with pre-judgment interest (from the date of injury through the date of judgment) at the maximum rate allowed by law; post- judgment interest at the legal rate; costs of court; and such other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled at law or in equity. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTTED Vt Mom Esther Cortez Treneer Texas State Bar No. 04844900 5850 San Felipe, Ste. 500 Houston, Texas 77057 713-337-0164 esther @corteztreneerlaw.com ESTHER CORTEZ TRENEER Attomey Mediator 5850 San Felipe, Suite 500 Houston, Texas 77057 Phone: 713 Fax: 713 sther@ corteztreneerlaw.com October 18 Civil Clerk for Justice of the Peace Precinct 5, Place 1 Harris County, Texas RE: Cause No International Communications Management Inc. v. LCG Dear Clerk is to request service of citation by certified mail on defendant CEO Ken Tisdel at 306 Morton Street, 2. Floor in Historic Exchange Hotel, Richmond, Texas 77469. I am submitting the required $15 fee with this filing. Thank you. Very Tnuly Y ours Esther Cortez Treneer Esther Cortez T eneer oie sk > een VS Defendant > | Clo CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE case# QIS10024 12492 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ON THIS Iq DAY OF Octo b on 202 | I HAVE DELIVERED A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF (document/filing) Dorot Caim Citation BY: (means of delivery) Carkified Mai TO THE FOLLOWING: 1 T CWek Execctive URS elles a(t 1 fo) aa PV) ee edt)oa Ken isde\ i Offi an : o Ba NAME ir CMC eee OFFICIAL USE ae 206 Agcton Sweet £ Sree Qed cov \Cer Astovic. Exchany Fi is. . Rdamond TX TIUCH ‘afanm vices & Fees (check Receipt hardcopy) ChRetum Receipt (electronic) bar, ‘ad coe 8. 8. Llocrtied tail Restictod Detvery CITY STATE ZIP Dladut signature Required $ _—___ CoAdutt signature Restricted Delivery $. 10\4_2410 0002 2US4 A404 RedPostage and Fees CERTIFIED RECEIPT NUMBER [Sent To Oo Bat 06 en Medel nS 2 lr, i, an ‘Stale, Pee ren Bocce Sworn and Subscribed before me this \q ” day of October ZO2| . Wntsaey, Ny ws s yw E M4, \ reeteeas, SS CIN cr QS oS) AgeCOF the Court [Notary Public fo PLACE wid %,, COUN THAW we mw EL Judge Israel B. Garcia, Jr. Jee U.S. POSTAGE >> PITNEY 80WES Justice of the Peace, Precinct 5 Place 1 CS ESS eS. % 6000 Chimney Rock, Suite 102 pee louston, Texas 7OL5 2970 OO02 2454 9921 ze 77081 § O07.53° eee 0000359126 0CT 26 2021 - - 4 —— i ~ NGERS OMPANIES INC. Marvy A. Finger 99 Detering St., Suite 200 et Houston TX 77007 2161002881 2 - RT ae —— naan = - od =H Ei ~ ey Janta) id = oN MAEM te) Onur ONG i Wat Lesa toy Moyes tad igh 4 | Complete items 1, 2, and 3. ‘A. Signature ' B Print your name and address on the reverse 1 Agent | ‘so that we can return the card to you. x 1 Addressee i Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, B. Received by (Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery or on the front if space permits. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different from item 1? (1 Yes wae If YES, enter delivery address below: CNo Marvy A. Finger 99 Detering St., Suite 200 ‘ Houston TX 77007 - ~ i mu Hil Se ervi ice Type it Signature we ion rity Mail Express® gistered Mail™ fa it Signature Restricted Delivery ‘Registered Mait Restricted 9590 9402 4535 8278 9483 97 Certified Mail Restricted Delivery 1 Return Receipt for Collect on Delivery > Arfinla, Niemhar [Troncfar fram sandnn Inbal O Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 0 gna Confrmation™* oy 2970 gO002 2454 3911. O Insured Mail ‘Signature Confirmation 1 Inured Mail Restcted Delvery Restric livery PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9063 TIE \NOISAAL _Domestic Return Receipt + - - a e ae a wo ee ee ~ aa —— we ao Proposal to LCG for System Administration Services 1/29/2021 Phase 1: Discovery y Dereck Senter (Minimum 4 hours not to exceed 8 hours) $150 per hour Login and check Kasaya against asset tracking list, to include Servers. Verify AntiVirus Login and check Sonicwall Firewall. Check Synology backup. Phase 2: Establish Best Practice System Admin Procedures oday timate O hours not to exceed 40 hours, will give closer estimate after phase 1) $150 per hour velop plan to Virtualize server Go over Office365. Ensure Kasaya is deployed to all assets. Develop plan to enhance backup capability. Phase 3: Ongoing Administrative Services ( oday estimate 10 hours per week will give closer estimate after phase 1 ) $65 per hour Perform Backups Manage software patch process All other weekly system admin and maintenance tasks INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION § IN THE JUSTICE COURT MANAGEMENT, INC. § PCTS5-PL1 LCG, LLC § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES and TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: LCG, LLC., (hereinafter referred to herein as “LCG” and files this Original Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. I. GENERAL DENIAL and VERIFICATION 1 LCG, LLC., pursuant to Tex. R Civ. P. 91 denies each and every plural and singular the allegations set on the Plaintiff's Original Petition and demands strict proof thereof. 1.(A). LCG pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 93 by verification affirmatively states: That the written instrument upon which a pleading (Plaintiffs Pleading) is founded is without consideration, Il. FACTS 2 On or about January 29, 2021 LCG approached International Communication Management, LLC., (hereinafter “Plaintiff’), to obtain IT services for LCG’s computer/servers. A copy of the ICM’s proposal is attached hereto as Exhibit | and is incorporated for all purposes as it set out verbatim herein and which describes the “Scope of the Work” to be performed by Plaintiff for the benefit of LCG. Written e:mails by LCG were exchanged concerning billing issues, work alleged to be completed by Plaintiff, work not completed by Plaintiff. Billing hourly rates, man- hours to complete work alleged completed did not support work done vs. work not done and hours performed vs. amounts billed which did not support actual hours performed and actual work completed for alleged work performed by Plaintiff. Deliverables alleged to have been performed by Plaintiffs were not and billed amounts exceeded the alleged work completed by Plaintiffs as set out in Phase | and Phase 2 in the invitation to negotiate. This is a quantum meruit case wherein a reasonable sum of money to be paid for services rendered or work done when the amount due is not stipulated in a legally enforceable contract! Ill. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 2 LCG, LLC, pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P files the following Affirmative Defenses pursuant to Rule 94 Tex. R. Civ. Procedure. Promissory estoppel: Plaintiff promised LCG that Plaintiff would provide the “bargained for exchange (consideration) but did not which negatively affected LCG; Equitable estoppel: LCG was misled by Plaintiff's representation of its abilities to perform or subsequent refusal to perform the balance of its contractual obligations to LCG. Plaintiff misrepresented its abilities to perform/refusal to complete its contractual obligations to LCG; Failure of Consideration: Plaintiff failed to perform its contractually required obligations to LCG resulting in a substantial failure of consideration and therefore Fraud: Plaintiff represented that it had performed its obligations pursuant to its offer to LCG and expected defendant to pay Plaintiff for its partial performance; (e) Conditions precedent not completed; () Defendant asserts the affirmative defense of Offset; (g) Defendant asserts the affirmative defense of unconscionability; and (h) Defendant asserts Quantum Meruit as Plaintiff's only means of recovery, if any. @ Plaintiff is not entitled to recovery of its attorney’s fees. IV. FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION 3 Defendant would further show that there was a failure of consideration with respect to the agreement on which Plaintiff's lawsuit is based. V. FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT 4 Defendant would further show that a false promise or representation was made by Plaintiff on which Defendant reasonably relied in entering into the agreement on which Plaintiff's lawsuit is based. Bernal v. Garrison, 818 S.W.2d 79 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi 1991, writ denied); Cecil v. Zively, 683 S.W.2d 853 (Tex.App. - Houston [14th D.] 1984, no writ). 5 Defendant therefore avers that any such agreement was therefore void ab initio and EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL 6. LCG would further show that Plaintiff falsely represented or concealed a material fact, of which Plaintiff had knowledge, with the intention that LCG act thereupon. LCG did not know the truth in this regard, and was induced by such misrepresentation and/or concealment to enter into the agreement on which Plaintiff's lawsuit is based. LCG therefore pleads the affirmative OFFSET 7 LCG would further show that it is entitled to offset from Plaintiffagainst any recovery that may be awarded to Plaintiff by reason its offer to settle this matter for $1,000.00. VIOLATIONS OF DTPA 8 LCG further pleads as an affirmative defense that the violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Section 17.41, et seq., operate as a bar to recovery by Plaintiff in this DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES 9 LCG would show that Plaintiff engaged in certain false, misleading and deceptive acts, practices and/or omissions actionable under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices - Consumer Protection Act (Texas Business and Commerce Code, Chapter 17.41, et seq.), as alleged herein 10. Unconscionable Action or Course of Action. Plaintiffengaged in an "unconscionable action or course of action" to the detriment of Defendant as that term is defined by Section 17.45(5) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, by taking advantage intentionally misleading Defendant via their presentation of the “Scope of Work” which Plaintiff represented that it would perform on behalf LCG, which “work” was not performed as agreed , nor was the ability, experience or capacity of the Plaintiff as represented to LCG. Plaintiff's course of conduct was a complete misrepresentation to LCG of its experience and capacity to perform the “Scope of Work” to a grossly unfair degree. 11. Violations of Section 17.46(b). Plaintiff violated Section 17.46(b) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, in that Plaintiff: (a) caused confusion or misunderstanding as to the source, of its services; (b) represented that Plaintiff's services have characteristics, uses, benefits, or qualities which they did not have; (c) represented that services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, but were in (d) represented that an agreement confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it did not have or which were not performed as represented to LCG; (e) knowingly made false or misleading statements of fact concerning the need for () represented that work or services have been performed on, or parts replaced in, LCG’s computers, servers when the work or services were not performed or the parts replaced or upgraded; (g) failed to disclose information concerning goods or services which was known at the time of the transaction with the intention to induce the consumer into a transaction into which the consumer would not have entered had the information been disclosed, i.e. (h) performing work not required or by performing work which was not requested; @ made false or misleading statements of fact concerning the reasons for, existence of, G) based a charge for the repair of any item in whole or in part on a guaranty or warranty instead of on the value of the actual repairs made or work to be performed on the item without stating separately the charges for the work and the charge for the warranty or guaranty, if any. 12. Producing Cause. LCG would show that the acts, practices and/or omissions complained of were the producing cause of LCG’s damages more fully described herein 13. Reliance. LCG would further show the acts, practices and/or omissions complained of under Section 17.46(b) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code were relied upon by Defendant to LCG's detriment. COMMON LAW FRAUD 14. LCG further shows that Plaintiff made material false representations to LCG with the knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard of the truth with the intention that such representations be acted upon by LCG and LCG relied on these representations to its 15. LCG would further show that Plaintiff concealed or failed to disclose material facts within the knowledge of Plaintiff, that Plaintiff knew that Defendant did not have knowledge of the same and did not have equal opportunity to discover the truth, and that Plaintiff intended to induce the other party to enter into the transaction made the basis of this suit by 16. As a proximate result of such fraud, LCG sustained the damages described more fully herein below. COMMON LAW FRAUD 17. LCG would further show that the false representations and/or promises of Plaintiff constitute actual fraud in LCG’s contractual acceptance of Plaintiff's “Scope of Work” offered to LCG. 18. LCG is therefore entitled to recover from Plaintiff actual damages described more fully herein below, i.e. work not performed by Plaintiff resulting in LCG’s increased costs caused by Plaintiff's failure to perform its contractual obligations to LCG; reasonable and necessary attorneys fees incurred in defense of the specious work not performed by Plaintiff; expert witness fees, costs for copies of depositions, and costs of court. NEGLIGENCE 19. In the course of the transactions between Plaintiff and LCG, Plaintiff owed LCG a duty to perform in a professional manner pursuant to Plaintiff's “Scope of the Work” it represented it would perform and complete as it represented to LCG. 20. LCG would show that Plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care in performing its contractual obligations to LCG. The acts and/omissions of Plaintiffas described herein above by which Plaintiff breached such duty constitute a proximate cause of the damages of LCG as described herein above, for which Plaintiff is liable to LCG. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 21. LCG would show that Plaintiff during the course of its work for LCG supplied false information in the course of their business/profession or in the course of a transaction in which Plaintiff has a pecuniary interest, and that such information was inaccurately and/or misrepresented by Plaintiff for the guidance of LCG in the bargained for exchange performed by Plaintiff described herein above. Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining/communicating or performing the work which it was obligated to perform on behalf of LCG. LCG avers that LCG suffered pecuniary loss, described more fully herein above, which was proximately caused by Defendant and justifiably relied upon by LCG. 22. LCG therefore asserts a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation against Plaintiff, as provided by Federal Land Bank Association of Tyler v. Sloane, 825 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. 1991). BREACH OF CONTRACT 23. LCG would further show that the actions and/or omissions of Plaintiff described herein above constitute breach of contract, which proximately caused the direct and consequential damages of LCG described herein above, and for which LCG hereby sues. ACTUAL DAMAGES 24. LCG sustained the following actual damages as a result of the actions and/or (a) Out-of-pocket expenses incurred by LCG to hire third party to complete (b) Loss of use, including but not limited to the reasonable rental value of a (c) Lost profits. (d) LCG’s Loss of benefit of the bargain (e) Loss of credit and damage to credit reputation. () Interest and/or finance charges assessed against and paid by Defendant[s] (g) Loss of the "benefit of the bargain" by LCG; (h) LCG’s costs of completion;. @ Remedial costs; G) Reasonable and necessary engineering or consulting fees. MULTIPLE DAMAGES 25. As alleged herein above, LCG would show that the false, misleading and deceptive acts, practices and/or omissions complained of herein were committed "knowingly" in that Plaintiff had actual awareness of the falsity, deception, or unfairness of 26. LCG further avers that such acts, practices, and/or omissions were committed "intentionally" in that Plaintiff specifically intended that LCG act in detrimental reliance on the falsity or deception or of the unfairness relating to the services not performed, the poor quality of those services which were performed but were grossly misrepresented as to quality of work and its incompletion, the prices avered by Plaintiff were for work which was not 27. Therefore, LCG is entitled to recover multiple damages as provided by 17.50(b)(1) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES 28. LCG would further show that the acts and omissions complained of herein by Plaintiff were committed knowingly, willfully, intentionally, with actual awareness, and with the specific and predetermined intention of enriching said Plaintiffat the expense of LCG. In order to punish said Plaintiff for such unconscionable overreaching and to deter such actions and/or omissions in the future, LCG also seeks recovery from Plaintiff for exemplary damages as provided by Section 41.003(1) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and by Section 27.01 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code. ATTORNEY'S FEES 29. Request is made for all costs and reasonable and necessary attorney's fees LLCurred by or on behalf of LCG herein, LLCluding all fees necessary in the event of an appeal of this cause to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Texas, as the Court deems equitable and just, as provided by: (a) Section 17.50(d) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code (b) Section 27.01(e) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code (c) Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code (d) Section 37.009 of the Texas PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant, LCG, LLC, respectfully prays that, upon a final hearing of this cause, the Plaintiff take nothing, and that judgment be entered for the Defendant LCG against Plaintiff and for the economic/actual damages requested herein above by way of counterclaim in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of the Court, together with prejudgment and post judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law attorney's fees, and that LCG be awarded costs of court and such other and further relief to which LCG may be entitled at law or in equity, whether pled or unpled. Law Offices of Charles C. Gregory III Law Offices of L. T. “Butch” Bradt /s/ L.T. “Butch” Bradt By: Charles C. Gregory III SBOT #02841600 TBN 08432500 14090 Southwest Freeway, Suite 300 P. O. Box 965 Sugar Land, Texas 77478 Simonton, TX 77476 (281) 201-0700 (713) 208-7200 Fax: (281) 201-1202 Attorney for Luz Oriente Numero 64 Attorney for Luz Oriente Numero 64 Itbradt@flash.net STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF FORT BEND § VERIFICATION BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Ken Tisdel, CEO, LCG, LLC. who after being by me duly sworn, deposed as follows: "My name is Ken Tisdel, CEO of LCG, LLC. I am at least 18 years of age and of sound mind. I am personally acquainted with the facts alleged in the foregoing Original Answer regarding the general denial, affirmative defenses, DTPA counterclaim, and with Ken Tisdel-CEO-LCG, LLC. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME by Ken Tisdel, CEO-LCG, LLC., to the undersigned notary public, on this the day of October, 2021 in the County of Fort Bend, State of Texas. Notary Public-State of Texas SEAL/STAMP: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been efiled and elaw served to Ms. Esther Cortez Treneer via e:mail to esther@corteztreneerlaw.com on this the 31st day of October, 2021. Charles C. Gregory II STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF FORT BEND § VERIFICATION BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Ken Tisdel, CEO, LCG, LLC. who after being by me duly sworn, deposed as follows: "My name is Ken Tisdel, CEO of LCG, LLC. Iam at least 18 years of age and of sound mind. I am personally acquainted with the facts alleged in the foregoing Original Answer regarding the general denial, affirmative defenses, DTPA counterclaim, and with respect to failure of consideration, w! are true and correct." V Ken Tisdel-CEO-LCG, LLC. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME by Ken Tisdel, CEO-LCG, LLC., to the undersigned notary public, on this the 28 day of October, 2021 in the County of Fort Bend, State of Texas. LSU Ke KY ‘7 Af (Notary Phibl tic3 fe of Xas AN WiLULAMS “Printed Name SEAL/STAMP: an MY, JENNIFER LYNN WILLIAMS 2 Notary Public, State of Texas op § Comm. Expires 07-06-2022 ay Notary ID 131633534 seopaeemeeese wes - 7 ~ p)=iy 18) 1s ele) a oR eNO en RL ee eae Rea x “L/(9 Te ™-Complete items 1, 2, and 3. ™ Print your name and address on the reverse ‘so that we can return the card to you. cp . ° @ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, i f7¢7 ery { or on the front if space permi D. Is delivery addfess different from item 1? a lez If YES, enter delivery address below: ~ [] No Ken Tisdel, Chief Executive Officer 306 Morton Street, 24 Floor Historic Exchange Hotel Richmond TX 77469 ——— co Type TATE Mitt rorty Mall Express® ult Signat jul Signature RstRéted Delivery. epistered Mail Restricted certified Mall® 9590 9402 4535 8278 9484 03 Certified Mail Restricted Delivery 1 Retum Receipt for O Collect on Dei ‘Article. Number. (Transfer. from service Jabel)._____ D Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery Dy grate Confirmation" 1D Insured Mait nature Confirmation 7019 2970 OO02 2454 4904 O aug Met Restricted negcen Restricted Delivery PS Form'3814, July'2015 PSN Tit 7530-02-000-9053 DIS \OODAT2 AL bess Ramm Roca “neering | WFAN USPS TRACKING# First-Class Mall Postage & Fees Paid USPS. Permit No. G-10 9590 9402 4535 8278 9484 03 United States * Sender: Please print your-name, address, and ZIP+4° in this box® Postal Service Justice, fhe Force , Precinct Se3 S Vo cas. 6000 Chim Took , Suite WL ee Ss ce Houston , Texas T1031 aoe go MAHAN ae Danna ebaed ad eat Dbedd tage beep CAUSE NO. INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT MANAGEMENT, INC. PRECINCT 5 PLACE 1 LCG HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION AND ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Plaintiff International Communications Management, Inc. (ICM) files this Original Petition against defendant LCG and show the Court the following: JURISDICTION AND VENUE This court has jurisdiction and venue is proper in Harris County, Texas because this is the county in which the cause of action described in this Petition occurred in whole or in part. PARTIES AND SERVICE Plaintiff is a corporation doing business in the State of Texas. Defendant is a business or corporation and may be served with citation by certified mail return receipt requested by serving its chief executive officer, Ken Tisdel at 306 Morton Street, 2 Floor in Historic Exchange Hotel, Richmond, Texas 77469 or any other place where Defendant may be found. FACTS Plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement in which plaintiff agreed to provide technical services to defendant and defendant agreed to pay for said services. Plaintiff has made demand for payment, but defendant has refused to pay the full amount due. As such, plaintiff has been forced to bring suit for breach of contract. BREACH OF CONTRACT The parties entered into a valid, enforceable contract. Defendant breached that agreement by failing to pay for services rendered. Defendants breach has caused damage laintiff. QUANTUM MERUIT Alternatively, plaintiff claims damages for quantum meruit. Defendant was charged for only 20 hours of work, when 30 hours were actually worked, at a cost of $150 an hour. DAMAGES As a direct and proximate result of Defendants breach of contract, Plaintiff has suffered the following damages: Actual damages in the amount of $3,000 for breach of contract, or alternatively $4500 for quantum metuit. Attorney’s fees of $1 Costs of suit, including but not limited to any court costs associated with filing and/or prosecuting this action; Prejudgment and post judgment interest; and All other relief, in law and in equity, to which Plaintiffs may be entitled. ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM Plaintiff denies all the allegations contained in defendants counterclaim and demands strict proof thereof. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully pray that Defendant LCG be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon a final hearing of the cause, judgment be entered for Plaintiff against Defendant, for damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of the Court, together with pre judgment interest (from the date of injury through the date of judgment) at the maximum rate allowed by law; post judgment interest at the legal rate; costs of court; and such other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled at law or in equity. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTTED Ether Cortes, Tremeer Esther Cortez Treneer Texas State Bar No. 04844900 5850 San Felipe, Ste. 500 Houston, Texas 77057 713 0164 esther@corteztreneerlaw.com Certificate of Service | certify that this pleading has been efiled and served on opposing counsel on this day of March, 2022. Ether Cortes, Tremeer Esther Cortez Treneer INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION § IN THE JUSTICE COURT MANAGEMENT, INC. § PCTS5-PL1 LCG, LLC § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER. PLEA TO JURISDICTION, PLEA OF PRIVILEGE MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, and TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: LCG, LLC., (hereinafter referred to herein as “LCG” and files this First Amended Original Answer, Plea to Jurisdiction, Plea of Privilege, Motion to Transfer Venue, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. I. PLEA TO JURISDICTION PLEA TO JURISDICTION-AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 3 SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF TEXAS TRIAL COURTS, § 3.03 SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION--AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY, § F--COUNTER CLAIMS, CROSS CLAIMS and THIRD PARTY CLAIMS 1 Defendant, LCG, L.L.C., after further consideration asserts that its counterclaim damages exceed this honorable court’s maximum jurisdictional limits and therefore asserts its Plea to Jurisdiction. 1.2. COUNTER CLAIMS, CROSS CLAIMS and THIRD PARTY CLAIMS are judged on their own merits when determining an amount in controversy that is within the court’s jurisdiction. ... If the amount sought exceeds the court’s monetary limit, the added claims belong II. GENERAL DENIAL and VERIFICATION 2 LCG, LLC., pursuant to Tex. R Civ. P. 91 denies each and every plural and singular the allegations set on the Plaintiff's Original Petition and demands strict proof thereof. 2.1 (A). LCG pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 93 by verification affirmatively states: That the written instrument upon which a pleading (Plaintiff's Pleading) is founded is without II. PLEA OF PRIVILEGE and MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE 3 Plaintiff states in its First Amended Original Petition I. This ... “ venue is proper in Harris County because this is the county in which the cause of action described in this Petition occurred in whole or in part”. LCG objects to the plaintiff's choice of venue. Plaintiff's venue statement is improper and incorrect. As a general rule, a suit in Justice Court must be brought in the county and in the Justice of the Peace precinct in which the defendant resides; in the county and in a Justice of the Peace precinct where the incident that gave rise to the claim occurred; the county and Justice of the Peace precinct where the contract, if any, that gave rise to the claim was to be performed; or the county and Justice of the Peace precinct where the property is located if the suit is to recover personal property. Rule 502.4. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 15, Subchapter E which contains a statutorily-created order of venue preferences and procedural rules addressing the order and manner of raising an issue of proper venue, must be followed by applying the following order, First, “Mandatory Rule” if applicable. Second, Permissive Venue. The “General Rule” is not applicable if either Mandatory or Permissive Venue applies. In this case the “General Venue Rule” which Plaintiff alleges applies is incorrect for the reason that Permissive Venue Rule applies. The “Permissive Venue Rule” states that if no “Mandatory Venue” exists Permissive Venue applies which allow certain defendants the “Privilege” of being sued in a particular county, i.e., Fort Bend County, the county of the Defendant’s principle office, “Permissive Venue”. Therefore, if no general, or mandatory venue provision controls, then permissive venue provisions allow certain defendants the “privilege” of being sued in a particular county. Pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 15.002 states If no mandatory or general venue provision controls, the permissive venue provisions allow certain defendants the privilege of being sued in a particular county. See also Texas Bus & Com Code §303.154. In this case permissive venue applies. IV. MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE 4 Plaintiff's First Amended Original Petition asserting Harris County as venu