Motion for Summary Adjudication in Nathan Hatcher And Hatcher Armory, LLC vs William Pace, Houston Armory, LP, Houston Armory Technology Group, LLC, And Armory Dealer Management, Inc| Trellis.Law

On January 14, 2016 a Answer was filed involving a dispute between Hatcher Armory, Llc, Hatcher, Nathan, and Armory Dealer Management, Inc, Houston Armory, Lp, Houston Armory Technology Group, Llc, Pace, William P., for Contract - Consumer/Commercial/Debt in the District Court of Fort Bend County.

Preview
Filed
1/16/2020 7:42 PM
Beverley McGrew Walker
District Clerk
Fort Bend County, Texas
Salena Jasso

CAUSE NO. 16-DCV-229243

NATHAN HATCHER, and IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
HATCHER ARMORY, LLC
Plaintiffs,

v. FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS

WILLIAM PACE,
HOUSTON ARMORY, L.P.,
HOUSTON ARMORY TECHNOLOGY
GROUP, LLC, and
ARMORY DEALER MANAGEMENT,
INC.
Defendants. 400 JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER B.
RAMEY AND THE ATTACH TS THERETO

Defendants William Pace, Houston Armory, LP, Houston Armory Technology Group,

LLC and Armory Dealer Management, Inc. (sometimes collectively referred to herein as

“Defendants”) asks the Court to continue to the summary judgment hearing or in the alternative,

deny Plaintiff Nathan Hatcher’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (hereinafter sometimes

referred to as “Motion”) as there exists several issues of fact regarding the agreement and the

delivery of the items contained in the agreement. The Defendants further asks the Court to strike

the Declaration of Christopher B. Ramey and all attachments thereto as contained in the

attachments are charges wholly unconnected to this matter and for which the Plaintiffs are

attempting to fraudulently claim as part of this cause of action. In furtherance of this fact issue,

Defendants would show the Court the following:

I. INTRODUCTION

1 Plaintiffs Hatcher Armory, LLC and Nathan Hatcher filed suit against William Pace,

Houston Armory, LP, Houston Armory Technology Group, LLC and Armory Dealer
Management, Inc. for common law fraud and fraud in the inducement, constructive fraud and

breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, agency and joint venture negligent misrepresentation,

negligence per se and gross negligence, breach of contract repudiation failure to cure promissory

and equitable estoppel, violation of the DTPA and conversion.

2. Defendants filed an answer in this matter.

3. Multiple issues of material fact exist in this case as the events which transpired between

the parties were mainly oral and not definite. Additionally, there were third parties who carried

on many of the negotiations, discussions and other transactions thereby creating numerous issues

of material fact.

I. BACKGROUND

4. On or before February 2012, Plaintiff contacted Cris Parsons regarding a collection of

firearms that Charles McKin had for sale in Tennessee. Plaintiff wanted to know if the firearms

were authentic and worth the purchase price. Defendant Pace agreed to authenticate the items

for Nathan Hatcher as he was interested in purchasing them. Accordingly, Mr. Pace traveled at

this own expense to Tennessee and looked at the firearms and contacted Plaintiff and told him

that the guns were authentic.

5. None of the Defendants agreed to undertake any additional responsibilities aside from

this trip to authenticate the items. The Plaintiff is attempting to attribute additional

responsibilities on the Defendants which are questions of fact for the jury to determine. The

testimony of Defendant William Pace and declaration of Duy Nyugen establish the true

responsivities that the Defendant had to the Plaintiff with regards to this transaction.

6. During the trip to Tennessee, Defendant separately purchased some firearms and

ammunition from Charles McKin for Defendant to sell in his gun shop on consignment. These
items were to be shipped back to Texas and sold through the Defendants shop. While there,

Defendant William Pace arranged for all the guns purchased by Plaintiff to be shipped with the

guns and ammunition purchased by Plaintiffs at his own cost and expense.

I, ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

1. Plaintiff did not satisfy his burden under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(c)

7. To succeed on a traditional motion for summary judgment on its cause of action, the

plaintiff must show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to

summary judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c) Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp

Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, 28 S.W. 3d 844, 848 (Tex. 2009).

8. To meet this burden, the plaintiff must conclusively prove all essential elements of its

claim MMP, Ltd v. Jones 710 S.W. 2d 59,60 (Tex. 1986). A matter is conclusively established if

reasonable people could not differ on the conclusion to be drawn from the evidence, City of

Keller v. Wilson 168 S.W. 3d 802, 816 (Tex. 2005).

9 In a summary judgment case, the issue is whether the movant met the summary judgment

burden by establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the movant is entitled

to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. Grant, 73

S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex.2002); City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 §.W.2d 671, 678

(Tex.1979). The burden of proof is on the movant, and all doubts about the existence of a

genuine issue of material fact are resolved against the movant. Sw. Elec. Power Co., 73 S.W.3d

at 215.

10. In deciding whether to grant plaintiff's motion, the court must take as true all competent

evidence favorable to the defendant and indulge every reasonable inference and resolve any
doubts in the defendant’s favor. Limestone Prods. Distrib., Inc. v McNamara, 71 S.W. 3d 308,

311 (Tex. 2011).

ii, Defendant Objects as the Plaintiff’s Pleadings do not Support its Cause of Action
in its Motion for Summary Judgment

10. For the movant to be entitled to a summary judgment, the grounds for summary judgment

must be supported by the movant’s pleadings. Daniels v. Daniels S.W 3d 278, 282 (Tex. App.-

corpus Christi 2001, no pet.) Thus, an un-plead cause of action cannot serve as the basis for a

summary judgment if the non-movant objects. Roark v. Stallworth Oil & Gas, Inc. 813 S.W. 2d

492, 494 (Tex. 1991).

11. Movant has requested summary judgment on their theory of breach of a bailment

agreement but that cause of action does not exist in their live pleadings An un-plead cause of

action cannot be pursued through a summary judgment when it is not alleged in the live pleadings.

12. Defendants object to the summary judgment cause of action for bailment as it is not a live

cause of action alleged in the Plaintiffs current pleadings. Further, there is no basis for the bailment

cause of action and the other causes of action do not support their theory of bailment.

iii. There is a Question of Fact as to the Exact Terms of the Oral Implied Agreement
between Plaintij ‘and Defendants

13. It is undisputed that no actual written agreement exists between the parties. Therefore, it

can only be an implied or oral agreement. The Bailment legal standard requires either an “express

or implied agreement” whereas here there is only an oral agreement the details of which can only

be implied from the facts. An implied contract involves an inference from circumstantial evidence

and is a question of fact. Double Diamond, Inc. v. Hilco Elec. Co-op, Inc., 1217 S.W.3d 260, 267

(Tex.App.-Waco 2003, no pet.)
14. There is question of fact as to what the Defendants were obligated to do which can only be

implied through the evidence. The Plaintiff has attempted to attribute additional obligations upon

the Defendants including this theory of bailment when, there is a dispute on what the Defendant

William Pace was specifically contracted to do. There is a question of fact as to what he agreed to

do on behalf of the Plaintiff Nathan Hatcher. Defendant testified his only obligation was to

authenticate and verify the purported items were real and nothing further. However, the Plaintiff

is attempting to attribute additional contractual responsibilities against Defendants to prove their

theory of liability. However, the evidence and testimony of Defendant Pace establishes a limited

role in this matter and that the remaining obligations were to be handled by Cris Parsons not

Defendant William Pace. There is a genuine issue of fact in dispute as to what the terms of the

implied agreement was between the parties which should be submitted to a jury for determination.

iy Question of Fact Exists as There was No Meeting of Minds and Thus no Contract
Formed;

15. There is a question of fact as to who was supposed to transfer the weapons to the

Plaintiff. Defendants have alleged that they were only responsible for authenticating, reviewing

and ensuring the weapons arrived in Texas (See Pace Deposition page 18 and 192). There is a

difference of opinion and thus a genuine issue of fact as it deals with what was supposed to

happen after the items arrived in Texas.

16. There is a question of fact as to who was responsible for transferring the items to the

Plaintiff. Clearly the Plaintiff believe with no basis in evidence that the Defendants were

responsible but the Defendants have alleged in their testimony that they handed over the keys to

the connex and any associated paperwork to Cris Parson, (See Pace Deposition page 18 and 192),

who agreed to handle all of the paperwork (See Duy Nguyen’s Declaration). Furthermore, there
is the statement of David Spector who is a NFA expert that testified that the seller is responsible

for all transfer paperwork and not necessarily the repair facility, ie Defendants (See Spector

Declaration). This is clearly a genuine issue of fact that must be submitted to the jury to determine

the appropriate party responsible in this transaction. Each party to this dispute believes it is not

their responsibility and the third party David Spector has indicated it is the responsibility of the

seller of the items. This fact issue must be submitted to jury to determine whose responsibility it

is in fact to transfer the items following their arrival in Texas.

ve There is an Ambiguity as to Terms of the Agreement Amongst the Parties which is a
Question of Fact That Needs to be Determined by the Jury;

17. Defendants have alleged on multiple occasions that Defendants agreed to transfer the guns

to the Plaintiff once his licenses were procured or at the direction of the Plaintiff in their bailment

theory. However, there is a question of fact as to what the exact terms of the alleged agreement is

between the Plaintiff and Defendants and whom was responsible for carrying it out. As stated in

the attached affidavits, Cris Parsons was running Houston Armory and was in charge of all aspects

of the Defendants business (See attached Declarations). Duy Nguyen has testified that Cris Parsons

stated he was undertaking the responsibility of transferring the items for Plaintiff. Third Party

David Spector indicates it is the responsibility of the seller to transfer the items. Thus, there is a

question of fact and ambiguity in the terms of the Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant.

18. Cris Parsons was making all decisions, filling out all paperwork, making all employment

decisions and was a Responsible Party on Defendants Federal Firearms License. Accordingly,

there is a question of fact as to who is responsible for the transfer of the firearms or was it the

responsibility of Defendant William Pace. William Pace was no longer working in Houston

Armory and thus cannot be held responsible for transferring the items. Cris Parsons and Nathan

Hatcher are the parties who received the paperwork, the keys to the connex and unloaded all of the
items from the connex (See Pace Deposition page 18 and 192 and Declaration of Duy Nguyen),

Both Parsons and Nathan Hatcher had the weapons in their possession, custody and control and

should have been the one who transferred the paperwork. There is a question of fact as to whom

is the individual who should have taken on the responsibility to transfer the firearms as the

testimony of Duy Nguyen establish that Cris Parsons is the one who agreed to take over this

responsibility.

vi. Question of Fact as to Whether the Defendants Can Be Held Liable when there is
0 Record that any of the Purportedly Missing Items were Ever Logged into the
Defendants Logbooks;

19. It is undisputed that Cris Parsons was running Houston Armory at the time that the event

which forms the basis for Plaintiff's claims transpired (See Deposition of William Pace pgs 41-

42; Declarations of Duy Nguyen). However, according to the declaration of David Spector, the

transferring party is the one who is responsible for filing the applicable paperwork and not the

party receiving the items for the alleged repair. There is a question of fact as to whether the

Defendants can be held responsible for items that were never logged into the records of

Defendants books and were likely stolen, transferred or removed by either Cris Parsons or the

Plaintiff Nathan Hatcher. Furthermore, there is the question of fact as to if there is any bailment

when possession of the disputed items were in fact turned over directly to the Plaintiff on the day

the items arrived in Texas and did not remain in the Defendants possession. Defendants did not

keep possession of any of the items when William Pace handed the keys to the connex over to

Cris Parsons and Nathan Hatcher.

vii. There is a Question of Fact if Plaintiff’s Alleged Bailment Terminated when
Plaintiff Accepted Delivery of the Items in the Connex Container;

20. The testimony of the Defendant William Pace and Duy Nguyen establish that once the

items arrived in Stafford, Texas, William Pace handed over the keys to the connex and any
associated documentation to Cris Parsons and Plaintiff Nathan Hatcher. (See deposition of William

Pace pages 18 and 192 and declaration of Duy Nguyen) Plaintiff was present when the connex

arrived and in fact assisted in unloading the connex. (See declaration of Duy Nguyen). There is

a question of fact as to if handing over the keys to Plaintiff and his friend Cris Parsons transferred

and delivered the items to each of those individuals thereby terminating any potential bailment

claims of the Plaintiff. Defendant stated that he never saw the items again after that and thus

fulfilled his obligation of evaluation and appraisal of the items. (See Pace Deposition pages 46-

47).
21. Essentially, the act of handing over the keys to the connex to Plaintiff fulfilled his alleged

obligations and fulfills the final requirement of the Plaintiffs bailment claim as the Defendants

did not possess the items or have access to them anymore. Defendants relinquished control the

minute it arrived in Texas and thus cannot be held liable for their disappearance as the items were

in the control, custody and care of the Plaintiff. The items were given to the Plaintiff in his

presence and in the presence of witnesses thereby negating any claim under a bailment theory. At

the very least, there is a question of fact as to if the Defendants fulfilled their obligations when

they turned over the keys to the connex.

viii. Question of Fact_as to Whose Possession the Items were in When the Alleged
Damage or Loss Occurred;

22. There is a question of fact as to what happened to the items once they were delivered in

Stafford, Texas and possession tendered to Cris Parsons and Plaintiff Nathan Hatcher.

Specifically, it is undisputed that the Defendants did not participate in the unloading of the items

from the connex container (See Declaration of Duy Nguyen). It is further undisputed that the

Defendant William Pace handed over the keys to the connex container to Cris Parson and Plaintiff

Nathan Hatcher. However, there is a clear issue of fact as to who is responsible for said items
once they were unloaded by the Plaintiff. There is also a fact issue as to what actually happened

to the items once they were unloaded. Plaintiff had access to the items and exercised control over

them. Defendants assert there is an issue of fact as to whether or not the Plaintiff accepted delivery

of the items when he physically unloaded them from the connex container. Furthermore, there is

an issue of fact as to whether the unloading of the connex container relieved Defendants of further

liability. In accordance with the testimony of Duy Nguyen, he indicated that Cris Parsons was in

charge of handing all paperwork, assumed this responsibility, was a responsible party on

Defendants Federal Firearms License and should have taken care of transferring the items to

Plaintiff. (see declaration of Duy Nguyen). Cris Parsons should be held responsible for these

actions and thus this issue should be submitted to a jury.

IV. OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS FEES

23. Defendants object to the request for damages as a there is a question of fact as to damages

in this case. The Plaintiff has been provided many of the alleged guns yet is still asking for the

total amount damages. Additionally, the testimony of Duy Nguyen establishes a material flaw in

the damages rationale as proposed by the Plaintiff. Specifically, Duy Nguyen testifies that the

M240 Machine Gun which the Plaintiff has been alleging was part of the original transaction was

not in fact part of the transaction (See declaration of Duy Nguyen). This creates a fact issue as to

damages and thus should be submitted to a jury for determination.

24. Defendants also object and seek to strike the Plaintiff's counsels affidavit in support of

attorney’s fees. Defendants object to the amount sought for attorney’s fees in this matter. The

amount is not reasonable for the work completed as only 3 deposition have been taken and one

round of discovery completed. Furthermore, Defendants object on the basis that Plaintiff did not
segregate and only attribute the work that was applied to this matter only. Their invoices detail

work which is outside the scope of this matter. Specifically, Plaintiffs counsel references:

Invoice 960156 References character affidavit related to
Jennifer Lovchik
Invoice 960156 Character affidavits of Jenn Issues

Invoice 960156 Eviction, Tenant Landlord Research

Invoice 960660 Work on Hatcher Lease

Invoice 960861 Drafting Cattle Grazing Leases

25. These are only a few of the instances in which time was improperly billed to this matter

but many more exist. Plaintiffs’ counsel should be not rewarded for inaccurately keeping time in

this matter. Plaintiffs’ counsel asserts in his affidavit that the “assertions contained in the exhibits

attached are true and correct” and “declares under penalties of perjury that that the aforementioned

is true and correct.” While the undersigned did not pull every instance in which the Plaintiffs’

counsel is not correct, the examples above prove that the timesheets are not correct, and Plaintiff

should be rewarded for their inaccurate time keeping. Furthermore, this is genuine issue of fact as

to attorney fees and thus should also be submitted to jury. The reasonableness of attorneys’ fees

is generally a fact issue. Haden v. DavidJ. Sacks, P.C., 332 S.W.3d 503, 512 (Tex. App.—Houston

[Ist Dist.] 2009, pet. denied).

CONCLUSION

26. Defendants has proven that many issues of fact exist between the parties and that Plaintiff

has not conclusively proven all their causes of action. The Plaintiffs have failed to meet their

burden of proof and do not provide any competent summary judgment evidence in support of their
claims. As a result, this Court should deny the Plaintiffs Motion and allow the parties to proceed

to trial on the merits.

Prayer

For these reasons, Defendants ask the Court to deny Plaintiffs Motion for Summary

Judgment.

Respectfully submitted,
Law Office of Keval Patel, PC

/s/_Keval Patel
State Bar No. 24052895
19855 Southwest Freeway, Suite 330
Sugar Land, Texas 77478
(281) 313-5300 (telephone)
(281) 313-5305 — (facsimile)
kpatel@patel-law.com
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on this 6" day of January 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document was served via the Courts filing system to all parties of record and via email to
notice@rameylegal.com.

/s/ Keval Patel
Keval Patel

William Pace

18
Q What they unloaded into -- Well, where

was the Conex dropped off? Put it that way.
A. The Conex was unloaded in the parking

lot of the shop.

Q What's the address of the shop?
A. 13335 Murphy Road.

Is the Conex still there today?
Yes, it is.

Q When was the last time that you're aware
10 that Mr. Parsons or Mr. Hatcher had access to
11 the Conex?

12 A. It probably would have been -- I don't
13 believe I ever got keys back from Chris for the

14 Conex, so as far as I'm concerned, they could

15 have access to it today if they walked in the
16 parking lot and unlocked the door. They could
17 get in it.

18 Q Is it locked?
19 -A. There -- there were locks on it. Chris
—
20 had -- had the keys. I guess the last time they
21 would've had access is whenever Chris and Nate

22 booked the trip to Las Vegas on my credit cards,
23 flew back first class on my credit cards,
24 partied -- partied hard in Vegas on my credit
25 cards and came back, because I fired Chris in

Southwest Reporting & Video Services, Inc. Registration #189
713-650-1800 swreptproduction@swreporting.com
William Pace
192
don't know how to answer that question.

Q (BY MR. RAMEY) : Tell me everything you

can think of that you did to protect that

property while it was in your Conex?

A. Well, the Conex wasn't in my possession

for quite some time.

Q Where was it?

A I didn't have the keys.

Q Your employee had the keys. Are you
10 trying to say you can't get the keys from Chris?
11 A. Why would I -- why would I go get the

12 keys? What did I need the keys for? On day

13 one -- on day one, day two, day three, whatever

14 it was -- I bet you day one --
15 MR. RAMEY: Objection;

16 nonresponsive.

17 A. -- they pulled all -- they pulled all

18 that stuff out of there. You don't think they
19 left them out there, do you?

20 Q Did you supervise any of that?
21 A. No. I wasn't there. I already told you

22 that.

23 MR. PATEL: Objection --

24 A. You can keep -- you can keep going and
25 going. We can do this all day if you want.

Southwest Reporting & Video Services, Inc. Registration #189
713-650-1800 swreptproduction@swreporting.com
William Pace

a1
the crane.

Q Okay.

A. I paid for the crane in Tennessee. I'm

not been reversed -- reimbursed for any of that.

Q What was your deal with Nathan Hatcher?

A. I didn't have a deal with Nathan

Hatcher. My only obligation to him was a verbal

to go and look at the collection, tell him
whether or not it was real, and that was my

10 obligation to him.

11 After that, I handed the phone to

12 McKin. After that, it was not my deal. I moved

13 on. When it came back, it was between Chris

14 Parsons, which is his buddy, his best friend,

15 and himself. He always had access to those guns.

16 He always had access to the shop. I

17 worked. I was in a very, very busy time of my

18 career at that time. I was not at that shop;

19 almost rarely, and if it was, it was in the late

20 evening with me coming back, so I was not in
21 possession of the collection.

22 I didn't hold the collection. Chris

23 opened the shop. Chris closed the shop. Chris

24 had the keys, all the codes. He ran the

25 business; not me. So at no point in time did I

Southwest Reporting & Video Services, Inc. Registration #189
713-650-1800 swreptproduction@swreporting.com
William Pace

42
possess this collection that we're discussing.

At no point in time did I do any
paperwork for this collection. I didn't handle
any transactions with this collection.

MR. RAMEY: I'll object to the
nonresponsive portion of the answer.

Q (BY MR. RAMEY) : So there's no written

agreement that you have with Mr. Hatcher with

respect to this -- this deal?
10 A. No.

11 Q There's no written -- a contract or

12 agreement with Mr. McKin that you're aware of
13 with respect to this deal?

14 A. With respect to what deal?

15 Q Well, the transaction. Obviously, you
16 went to --

17 A. There -- there was a list -- there was a
18 list, as I stated earlier. There was a list
19 written down. It wasn't a contract. It was a

20 list of items written down with assessments of
21 values all on the outside edge of them.
22 When we went down and we broke that
23 down, I wrote in my handwriting -- I wrote where

24 all the parts and pieces were going, but it
25 wasn't a contract. That was just -- that was

Southwest Reporting & Video Services, Inc. Registration #189
713-650-1800 swreptproduction@swreporting.com
William Pace

47
was the end.

Because I said -- Like I said, I was

busy. I didn't have time for that, so when I

handed it to him, I was done. Here you go.

_ (BY MR. RAMEY) : So what documents were

in the folder?

A The -- the -- the handwritten -- I'm --

I'm -- Again, I don't -- I'm not going to assume

I'm going to tell you what I know, right. I

10 don't know where that handwritten one was.

11 I don't know if those pictures came

12 from someone else and we got them from someone

13 else, or if -- I don't know where those came

14 from exactly, because when I go through my stuff,

15 I don't have that handwritten stuff.

16 I didn't find that -- that

17 scratched -- the copy of the scratched list, I

18 didn't find that until much later digging

19 through some other stuff. I found that list.

20 Q What do you mean the scratched list?

21 A The list that we compiled at the table.

22 Q You and McKin?

23 A When McKin and I were sitting at the

24 table and he wrote down -- we sat there, and

25 it's in his handwriting. He wrote everything

Southwest Reporting & Video Services, Inc. Registration #189
713-650-1800 swreptproduction@swreporting.com
William Pace

46
_ What is an SOT book?

A Just my FFL books.

Q Can we get a copy of those during the

break, because I --

A I can redact it because it's tax

information. I can't share people's tax

information with you, but I can block out. But

the guns that we sent back are not on your list,

they're on the consignment list, so they're not

10 associated to this.

11 Q Okay. So there's a separate consignment

12 list with McKin?

13 A Up until yesterday -- up until yesterday

14 when I saw there's a copy of a handwritten list,

15 I did not recall that list.

16 Q For the consignment?

17 A For the consignment.

18 _ Okay.

arg MR. PATEL: Which we produced that.

20 A Yeah. I -- I don’t even remember that

21 list, and I do believe that I -- I handed

22 Chris -- when -- when I came back and we set

23 that Conex down, I handed Chris keys and a

24 folder, and in that were all the documents that

25 y'all have, and the keys, and that was -- that

Southwest Reporting & Video Services, Inc. Registration #189
713-650-1800 swreptproduction@swreporting.com
UNSWORD DECLARATION OF DAVID SPECTOR IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS
REPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

STATE OF TEXAS

FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS

Before me, the undersigned notary, on this day personally appeared David Spector, the
affiant, whose identity is known to me. After I administered an oath, affiant testified as follows:

1 “My name is David Spector. I am over 18 years of age, of sound mind, and capable of
making this affidavit. The facts stated in this Affidavit are within my personal
knowledge and are true and correct. I am fully competent to testify to the matters herein.”

I am one of the owners or partners at Radical Firearms. I have been working in the
firearm industry for 10 years and am extremely knowledgeable regarding NFA procedures
and ATF procedures surrounding the transfer and sales of NFA weapons a d guns.”
n
“After Cris Parsons was fired from Houston Armory, he came to work Radical Firearm|
for a period of time.”

“While working for me at Radical, Cris did nothing but create problems for Radical
Firearms;”

“Cris was ultimately terminated from Radical Firearms due to the fact that he spoke to
Fox 26 regarding the Las Vegas Shooting while being under investigations for items he|
stole from Radical Firearms. It was determined that Cris Parsons was stealing firearms
and equipment from Radical and selling them to third parties;”

“Cris Parsons stole nearly $50,000.00 in firearms from Radical Firearms. We initially
pursued charges against Cris Parsons but my partners decided not to pursue them any
further and decided to drop the charges;”

“Cris Parsons is a liar, thief and a cheat. He does not follow any rules and does whatev jr
is necessary to make a dollar. While employed at Radical, Cris was investigated by the)
Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms (ATF) for fraudulent behavior;” é

“The ATF ultimately took away Cris Parsons ability to obtain a Federal Firearms licens
and will not allow him to be a responsible person or party on a license ever again;
¢
they do

ATF

transferring it;

particular companies

Hatcher complains

Firearms, Cris
with the his intent “hang Bill”
|

18. “Cris Parsons cannot be trusted as he is dishonest. He committed several acts of fraud
while working for me and I suspect he did the same while working for Houston Annory.”

“My name is David Spector, my date of birth is Maeeu 2% 478 , and my address is
15 foyer Haag ts lane TMS. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and

David Spector
UNSWORD DECLARATION OFDUY NGUYENIN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS
REPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

STATE OF TEXAS

FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS

Before me, the undersigned notary, on this day personally appeared DUY NGUYEN, the
affiant, whose identity is known to me. After I administered an oath, affiant testified as follows:

1 “My name is DUY NGUYEN. I am over 18 years of age, of sound mind, and capable of
making this affidavit. The facts stated in this Affidavit are within my personal
knowledge and are true and correct. I am fully competent to testify to the matters
herein.”

“T am a gun enthusiast who frequented Houston Armory during the time that the
Tennessee transaction occurred with David Mckin.”

“The Mckin transaction or the events that surrounded it were all set-up and orchestrated
by Cris Parsons. William Pace did not have anything to do with it. Cris Parsons found
David McKin and the fact that he was selling the guns. Cris Parsons coordinated all
efforts with Mckin directly and also made the deal with Nathan Hatcher to purchase
them. Willliam Pace was not working at Houston Armory and did not have any
communications with Nathan Hatcher or David Mckin until they met in Tennessee.

“Due to my advanced knowledge in weapons, William Pace asked me to accompany him
to Tennessee to view the guns which David McKin was selling. I decided to attend and
traveled with William Pace on behalf of Houston Armory.”

“William Pace was interested in purchasing a M249 Saw from himself which was the
primary reason he was heading to Tennessee. However, Cris Parsons asked William
Pace if he could evaluate the remaining guns in Mckin’s transaction because his good
friend Nathan Hatcher was interested;”

“William Pace agreed to evaluate and authenticate the guns for Nathan Hatcher. William
Pace did not agree to do anything further. In fact, Cris Parsons stated very clearly he
would handle the paperwork transfers of all of the weapons to Nathan Hatcher. William
Pace never agreed to transfer any of the guns and only agreed to authenticate the weapons
and to make sure they were worth the amounts Mckin claimed;”

“The M249 Saw was separate from the guns which Mckin was selling. That gun was
never part of the entire transaction as alleged by David Mckin and Nathan Hatcher. In
fact, that gun was sold separately outside of the $200,000.00 that Nathan Hatcher paid to
David Mckin. William Pace paid a cash deposit for the M249 Saw on the first visit to
David Mckin and then paid David Mckin a check for the remaining amount on the 2"
visit to Tennessee

From my recollection, I did not ever see William Pace talk directly to Nathan Hatcher
about any of the guns. William Pace never made any deals with Nathan Hatcher as all
communications were handled by Cris Parsons. He was acting as the middle man and
made all of the deals directly with Hatcher

On the day we traveled to Tennessee, William Pace and left really early from Houston.
We arrived in Tennessee in the morning. Mckin met us at one of his facilities where he
proceeded to show us the guns which were available. I remember that all of the items
were scattered all around at different locations

Mckin took us to several of his storage locations. We viewed items in 2 separate
connexes, in a warehouse, and at the top of a mountain in a shed. I remember we had to
climb a rather large mountain to view some items in a shed at the top

In addition, I remember we went to a storage facility and Mckin didn’t have the keys to
one of the units. Mckin accessed the unit through the one next door as he had keys for it.
He pried the metal back to access the unit for which he didn’t possess keys. In this unit is
wherehe pulled out the ammo. The ammo was corroded due to weather but he took it
with us

At time we were in Tennessee, I took pictures of all of the items. The only pictures
which exist of the Tennessee items were the pictures taken by me

“William Pace nor I agreed to any type of bailment arrangement with Nathan Hatcher.
Our only agreement was verify the authenticity of the weapons and the value so that
Nathan Hatcher could purchase them

“While in Tennessee, David Mckin had a vault doorand several boats in the connex
container. He told William Pace and I that those were freebies and the connex container,
the vault door and boats were William Pace’s for authenticating the items.

“After leaving Tennessee, William Pace flew home with thM249 Saw in hand. The
remainder of the items were loaded into a connex container and shipped back to Stafford,
Texas.
The items arrived in Stafford, Texas at night. Cris Parsons, Nathan Hatcher, myself,
Mel and William Pace were there when it arrived. The connex container was unloaded
from the truck and placed on the ground

“After it was placed on the ground, William Pace handed all of the paperwork that he had
in his hand to Cris Parsons and left. ris Parsons, Nathan Hatcher, myself and Me
unloaded the connex container. William Pace did not participate nor did he assist in any
manner.”

“Cris Parsons stated very clearly that he would take care of any paperwork to transfer the
guns to Nathan Hatcher. He stated in my presence that he would take care of all that was
required to transfer the weapons.”

“Cris Parsons was a responsible party on the Houston Armory Federal Firearms License
which meant that he could transfer guns under the Houston Armory license. I witnessed
him transfer guns on multiple occasions and in fact transferred several of the guns which
I purchased from Houston Armoryto me

“While visiting Houston Armory, | started to notice that Cris Parsons was extremely
sloppy with his paperwork and was not keeping track of weapons he was selling or
tra

Case Info

Judge

Tameika Carter Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

January 06, 2020

Case Filing Date

January 14, 2016

County

Parties

Armory Dealer Management, Inc Appellee
Armory Dealer Management, Inc Defendant
Christopher B. Ramey Attorney for the Plaintiff
Hatcher Armory, LLC Plaintiff
Hatcher, Nathan Appellant
Hatcher, Nathan Plaintiff
Houston Armory, LP Appellee
Houston Armory, LP Defendant
Houston Armory Technology Group, LLC Appellee
Houston Armory Technology Group, LLC Defendant
Keval Patel Attorney for the Appellee
Keval Patel Attorney for the Defendant
Pace, William P. Appellee
Pace, William P. Defendant
Christopher Bradford Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Dwight Jefferson Attorneys for Plaintiffs

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Answer: Nathan Hatcher And Hatcher Armory, LLC vs William Pace, Houston Armory, LP, Houston Armory Technology Group, LLC, And Armory Dealer Management, Inc

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties