Preview
FILED
10/17/2023 2:38 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Kellie Juricek DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-22-12740
LAUNDRYLUX FUNDING IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§§§§§§§§§§§§§
SERVICES, LLC
Plaintiff,
v. 162ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PETALS LAUNDRY TRADEWIND DR.,
LLC, AND JACQUES MASHAWN
DANDRIDGE A/K/A JACQUES M.
DANDRIDGE, JR.
Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CONTINUAN CE
Defendants Petals Laundry Tradewind Dr., LLC and Jacques Mashawn Dandridge a/k/a
Jacques M. Dandridge, Jr. files Defendants’ Unopposed Motion for Continuance and ask the Court
to continue the trial in this case for a date one hundred twenty (120) days in Mid- February 2024,
because additional time is needed to obtain discovery.
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 On September 19, 2022, Plaintiff, Laundrylux Funding Services, LLC (“Plaintiff’ or
“Laundrylux” hereinafter), sued Defendants, Petals Laundry Tradewind Dr., LLC and Jacques
Mashawn Dandridge a/k/a Jacques M. Dandridge, Jr. (“Defendants” or “Dandridge” hereinafter),
for Breach of Contract and Establishment and Foreclosure of a Security Interest.
1.2 On November 11, 2022, Defendants filed their Original Answer.
DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CONTINUAN CE l
1.3 On January 5, 2023, Defendants filed their First Amended Answer and Plea to the
Jurisdiction and on May 3, 2023, Defendants filed a counterclaim under the Fair Debt Practices
Act.
1.4 On September 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Answer and Response to
Defendants’ Counterclaim.
1.5 Also on September 13, 2023, Defendants filed their Second Amended Answer and Plea to
the Jurisdiction.
1.6 On September 14, 2023, the Court heard Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss based on lack of
jurisdiction.
II. BACKGROUND
2.1 This case is set for trial on October 24, 2023. Defendants have not made an unconditional
announcement of ready for trial.
2.2 Discovery in this suit was governed by a level 2 discovery-control plan. The discovery
period ended on September 24, 2023.
2.3 No discovery has been completed by either party.
2.4 This is Defendants’ first motion for continuance to obtain additional discovery.
III. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES
3.1 A court may continue a hearing or trial so that a party may obtain additional discovery
when the party (1) describes the discovery sought, (2) explains how the discovery is material, (3)
shows that due diligence was used to obtain the discovery, (4) explains why the discovery was not
obtained earlier, and (5) states that the continuance is not sought for delay but so that justice may
be done. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 252; see, e.g., State v. Wood Oil Distrib., Ina, 751 S.W.2d 863, 865
(Tex. 1988) (depositions); In re Guardianship osz'llareal, 330 S.W.3d 11, 27 (Tex. App—Corpus
DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CONTINUAN CE 2
Christi 2010, no pet.) (testimony); Wal—Mart Stores Tex., LP v. Crosby, 295 S.W.3d 346, 356 (Tex.
App .—Da11as 2009, pet. denied) (additional discovery); Tri-Steel Structures, Inc. v. Baptist
Found., 166 S.W.3d 443, 447-48 (Tex. App—Fort Worth 2005, pet. denied) (testimony); Verkz'n
v. Sw. Ctr. One, Ltd., 784 S.W.2d 92, 94-95 (Tex. App—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, writ denied)
(additional discovery).
3.2 Defendants need additional time to obtain testimony from Laundrylux representatives
regarding the multiple threats that Dandridge received from employees of Laundrylux when
Defendants were unable to pay the amounts due to Laundrylux. Defendants also need information
regarding the sale of the equipment in the laundromat, the estimated value of that equipment and
how much Laundrylux received in payment for the equipment.
3 .3 This testimony is material to Defendants’ counterclaim under the Texas Fair Debt Practices
Act because it establishes a material element to the claim.
3.4 Defendants were unable to obtain this testimony earlier because Defendants fully believed
the case would be dismissed by the Court for lack of jurisdiction1 based on the forum selection
clause in the loan agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants which stated that Defendants had
to “irrevocably submit to the jurisdiction of the State of New York.” However, the Court has, as
of the filing of this Motion for Continuance, never ruled on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
3.5 To obtain this evidence, Defendants need additional time to depose Plaintiff and its agents.
IV-
4.1 Defendants request that the Court grant a continuance to allow for additional discovery
because neither side has completed discovery in hopes of resolving this lawsuit as efficiently as
DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CONTINUAN CE 3
possible. Defendants request a one hundred twenty (120) day continuance to a date in Mid-
February 2024 to provide enough time to adequately complete discovery and prepare for trial.
PRAYER
For these reasons, Defendants ask the Court to set this Motion for hearing and continue the
trial in this case for a date in mid-February 2024, to give both parties time to conduct
discovery.
Respectfully submitted,
/S/Debra Edmondson
Debra Edmondson
Texas Bar 24045824
The Edmondson Law Finn, PLLC
P.O. Box 92801
325 Miron D12, Suite 100
Southlake, TX 76092
817-416-5291 (O)
debra@edmondsonlawfirm. com
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
Petals Laundry Tradewind Dr., LLC
By DD
Its
ques
J MaWMr-dridge
a acqu dridge, Jr.
DEFENDANTS
DEFENDANT S’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE 4
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Undersigned counsel emailed this motion to opposing party counsel, Patrick M. Lynch, on
October 9, 2023, and Mr. Lynch indicated that he is unopposed to this motion, and he prefers a
date in Mid-February for the trial.
/S/Debra Edmondson
Debra Edmondson
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to hereby certify that on October 17, 2023, I served a true and correct copy of the
above Defendants’ Amended Unopposed Motion for Continuance to all counsel of record pursuant
to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21a.
/S/Debra Edmondson
Debra Edmondson
DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CONTINUAN CE 5
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Debra Edmondson on behalf of Debra Edmondson
Bar No. 24045824
debra@edmondsonlawfirm.com
Envelope ID: 80681847
Filing Code Description: Motion - Continuance
Filing Description: DEF/AMENDED
Status as of 10/18/2023 10:35 AM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Patrick Lynch plynch@qslwm.com 10/17/2023 2:38:11 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: JACQUES MASHAWN DANDRIDGE A/K/A JACQUES
MASHAWN, JR
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Debra Edmondson debra@edmondsonlawfirm.com 10/17/2023 2:38:11 PM SENT
Marjorie Sener Marjorie@edmondsonlawfirm.com 10/17/2023 2:38:11 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: LAUNDRYLUX FUNDING SERVICES LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Joseph Glover josephg@edmondsonlawfirm.com 10/17/2023 2:38:11 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 10/17/2023 2:38 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Kellie Juricek DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-22-12740 LAUNDRYLUX FUNDING IN THE DISTRICT COURT §§§§§§§§§§§§§ SERVICES, LLC Plaintiff, v. 162ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT PETALS LAUNDRY TRADEWIND DR., LLC, AND JACQUES MASHAWN DANDRIDGE A/K/A JACQUES M. DANDRIDGE, JR. Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CONTINUAN CE Defendants Petals Laundry Tradewind Dr., LLC and Jacques Mashawn Dandridge a/k/a Jacques M. Dandridge, Jr. files Defendants’ Unopposed Motion for Continuance and ask the Court to continue the trial in this case for a date one hundred twenty (120) days in Mid- February 2024, because additional time is needed to obtain discovery. I. INTRODUCTION 1.1 On September 19, 2022, Plaintiff, Laundrylux Funding Services, LLC (“Plaintiff’ or “Laundrylux” hereinafter), sued Defendants, Petals Laundry Tradewind Dr., LLC and Jacques Mashawn Dandridge a/k/a Jacques M. Dandridge, Jr. (“Defendants” or “Dandridge” hereinafter), for Breach of Contract and Establishment and Foreclosure of a Security Interest. 1.2 On November 11, 2022, Defendants filed their Original Answer. DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CONTINUAN CE l 1.3 On January 5, 2023, Defendants filed their First Amended Answer and Plea to the Jurisdiction and on May 3, 2023, Defendants filed a counterclaim under the Fair Debt Practices Act. 1.4 On September 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Answer and Response to Defendants’ Counterclaim. 1.5 Also on September 13, 2023, Defendants filed their Second Amended Answer and Plea to the Jurisdiction. 1.6 On September 14, 2023, the Court heard Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction. II. BACKGROUND 2.1 This case is set for trial on October 24, 2023. Defendants have not made an unconditional announcement of ready for trial. 2.2 Discovery in this suit was governed by a level 2 discovery-control plan. The discovery period ended on September 24, 2023. 2.3 No discovery has been completed by either party. 2.4 This is Defendants’ first motion for continuance to obtain additional discovery. III. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES 3.1 A court may continue a hearing or trial so that a party may obtain additional discovery when the party (1) describes the discovery sought, (2) explains how the discovery is material, (3) shows that due diligence was used to obtain the discovery, (4) explains why the discovery was not obtained earlier, and (5) states that the continuance is not sought for delay but so that justice may be done. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 252; see, e.g., State v. Wood Oil Distrib., Ina, 751 S.W.2d 863, 865 (Tex. 1988) (depositions); In re Guardianship osz'llareal, 330 S.W.3d 11, 27 (Tex. App—Corpus DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CONTINUAN CE 2 Christi 2010, no pet.) (testimony); Wal—Mart Stores Tex., LP v. Crosby, 295 S.W.3d 346, 356 (Tex. App .—Da11as 2009, pet. denied) (additional discovery); Tri-Steel Structures, Inc. v. Baptist Found., 166 S.W.3d 443, 447-48 (Tex. App—Fort Worth 2005, pet. denied) (testimony); Verkz'n v. Sw. Ctr. One, Ltd., 784 S.W.2d 92, 94-95 (Tex. App—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, writ denied) (additional discovery). 3.2 Defendants need additional time to obtain testimony from Laundrylux representatives regarding the multiple threats that Dandridge received from employees of Laundrylux when Defendants were unable to pay the amounts due to Laundrylux. Defendants also need information regarding the sale of the equipment in the laundromat, the estimated value of that equipment and how much Laundrylux received in payment for the equipment. 3 .3 This testimony is material to Defendants’ counterclaim under the Texas Fair Debt Practices Act because it establishes a material element to the claim. 3.4 Defendants were unable to obtain this testimony earlier because Defendants fully believed the case would be dismissed by the Court for lack of jurisdiction1 based on the forum selection clause in the loan agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants which stated that Defendants had to “irrevocably submit to the jurisdiction of the State of New York.” However, the Court has, as of the filing of this Motion for Continuance, never ruled on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 3.5 To obtain this evidence, Defendants need additional time to depose Plaintiff and its agents. IV- 4.1 Defendants request that the Court grant a continuance to allow for additional discovery because neither side has completed discovery in hopes of resolving this lawsuit as efficiently as DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CONTINUAN CE 3 possible. Defendants request a one hundred twenty (120) day continuance to a date in Mid- February 2024 to provide enough time to adequately complete discovery and prepare for trial. PRAYER For these reasons, Defendants ask the Court to set this Motion for hearing and continue the trial in this case for a date in mid-February 2024, to give both parties time to conduct discovery. Respectfully submitted, /S/Debra Edmondson Debra Edmondson Texas Bar 24045824 The Edmondson Law Finn, PLLC P.O. Box 92801 325 Miron D12, Suite 100 Southlake, TX 76092 817-416-5291 (O) debra@edmondsonlawfirm. com ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS Petals Laundry Tradewind Dr., LLC By DD Its ques J MaWMr-dridge a acqu dridge, Jr. DEFENDANTS DEFENDANT S’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE 4 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE Undersigned counsel emailed this motion to opposing party counsel, Patrick M. Lynch, on October 9, 2023, and Mr. Lynch indicated that he is unopposed to this motion, and he prefers a date in Mid-February for the trial. /S/Debra Edmondson Debra Edmondson CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to hereby certify that on October 17, 2023, I served a true and correct copy of the above Defendants’ Amended Unopposed Motion for Continuance to all counsel of record pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21a. /S/Debra Edmondson Debra Edmondson DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CONTINUAN CE 5 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Debra Edmondson on behalf of Debra Edmondson Bar No. 24045824 debra@edmondsonlawfirm.com Envelope ID: 80681847 Filing Code Description: Motion - Continuance Filing Description: DEF/AMENDED Status as of 10/18/2023 10:35 AM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Patrick Lynch plynch@qslwm.com 10/17/2023 2:38:11 PM SENT Associated Case Party: JACQUES MASHAWN DANDRIDGE A/K/A JACQUES MASHAWN, JR Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Debra Edmondson debra@edmondsonlawfirm.com 10/17/2023 2:38:11 PM SENT Marjorie Sener Marjorie@edmondsonlawfirm.com 10/17/2023 2:38:11 PM SENT Associated Case Party: LAUNDRYLUX FUNDING SERVICES LLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Joseph Glover josephg@edmondsonlawfirm.com 10/17/2023 2:38:11 PM SENT