Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment in KAZ MEYERS PROPERTIES, LLC,et al vs. NURAN, INC| Trellis.Law

On November 16, 2020 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Kaz Meyers Properties, Llc, Mhnc Meyers, Llc, Smhnc Meyers, Llc, Ykhknc Meyers, Llc, Ytnc Meyers, Llc, and Nuran, Inc, for SEVERANCE in the District Court of Dallas County.

Preview
FILED
10/26/2023 4:43 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Brandon Keys DEPUTY

CAUSE NO. DC-20-17067

KAZ MEYERS PROPERTIES, LLC, D/B/A § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
NORTH CREEK KAZ MEYERS, LLC, §
MHNC MEYERS, LLC, SMHNC MEYERS, §
LLC, YKHKNC MEYERS, LLC, and YTNC
MEYERS, LLC,

Plaintiffs,
44™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NURAN, LLC fik/a
NURAN, INC.

Defendant. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ NO-EVIDENCE
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT’S
COUNTERCLAIM FOR FRAUDULENT LIEN

COMES NOW Defendant Nuran LLC f/k/a Nuran, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Nuran”), in the

above-styled and numbered cause, and files its Response (“Response”) to Plaintiffs’ No-Evidence

Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendant’s Counterclaim for Fraudulent Lien (“Motion”). In

support of this Response, Nuran respectfully submits as follows.

L SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

1 Nuran submits more than a scintilla of evidence creating a genuine issue of material

fact that Plaintiffs’ lis pendens notices filed and recorded against Nuran’s real property, the

Sunchase Square Apartments (“Sunchase”) and Ivy Apartments (“Ivy”), are fraudulent liens. The

lis pendens state that Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against Nuran “involves a dispute over title and

establishment of an interest in the [Sunchase and Ivy].” See Notices of Lis Pendens, Ex. B (App.

25, 29). But, as shown below, Plaintiffs do not seek an interest in Sunchase and Ivy. Rather, their

Second Amended Petition (“Petition”) seeks only (i) a cause of action under the Texas Uniform

Defendant’s Response Page 1 of11
456330_6
Fraudulent Transfer Act (“TUFTA”) and (ii) an equitable remedy of constructive trust. See

Petition, Ex. E (App. 41-42). Under Texas law, Plaintiffs’ claim for constructive trust is merely

collateral, not direct, and therefore, it is not a proper basis for filing a notice of lis pendens.

Plaintiffs’ notices of lis pendens constitute fraudulent liens as a matter of law. Therefore, because

this Response identifies more than a scintilla of evidence creating a genuine fact issue, and the

Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion.

II. RELEVANT FACTS

2. On September 27, 2017, Shawnee, Inc. (“Shawnee”) sold to Plaintiffs the

commercial office building known as Northcreek Place I (“Northcreek”).

3 On December 28, 2017, Plaintiff MHNC Meyers LLC d/b/a North Creek Kaz

Meyers, LLC (“Kaz Meyers”) filed suit against Shawnee, among others, relating to the Northcreek

sale. The suit is styled DC-17-17709 (“Original Action”). !

4 On June 26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Fifth Amended Petition bringing Nuran into

the Original Action. They alleged against Nuran a claim under TUFTA relating to the proceeds

from the sale of Northcreek, and sought a constructive trust.

5 Also on June 26, 2019, concurrently with the filing of the Fifth Amended Petition,

Plaintiffs improperly filed and recorded two Notices of Lis Pendens (“Notices”) against Nuran’s

real properties Sunchase and Ivy. See Notices of Lis Pendens, Ex. B (App. 25-32).

6 On November 16, 2020, the Court severed the claims by and between Plaintiffs and

Nuran from the Original Action into this separate cause, Cause No. DC-20-17067 (“2020

Lawsuit”).

' Kaz Meyers Properties, LLC d/b/a North Creek Kaz Meyers, LLC v. Shawnee, Inc., et al. Cause No. DC-17-17708
filed in the 44th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas.

Defendant’s Response Page 2 of 11
456330_6
7
On August 8, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the Petition in the 2020 Lawsuit. See Petition,

Ex. E (App. 40). The Petition still alleges only one cause of action against Nuran - the TUFTA

claim relating to the Northcreek sale proceeds, and seeks an application for constructive trust

which is an equitable remedy, not a cause of action. /d. (App. 40-42).

8 On September 20, 2023, Nuran deposed Plaintiffs’ corporate representative, Yisreal

(Tom) Green (“Green”) in the 2020 Lawsuit. Plaintiffs presented Green as their corporate

representative to testify on 44 separate deposition topics designated by Nuran in connection with

Plaintiffs’ allegations in the Petition. Out of these, deposition topics 41 and 42 were relevant to the

fraudulent lien notices of lis pendens that Plaintiffs filed and recorded against Nuran’s real

property Sunchase and Ivy. In the deposition, Plaintiffs admitted that there was no evidence in

support of Plaintiffs’ allegations. Plaintiffs’ sworn answers on topics relating to Plaintiffs’ filing

and recording of the lis pendens was, “We rely upon our lawyers in regards to legal matters.” See

Green Depo., Ex. A (App. 4-6).

lil. SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE

9 Nuran offers the following competent and admissible summary-judgment evidence

in support of this Response:

A. Deposition of Plaintiffs’ corporate representative Yisreal (Tom) Green dated

September 20, 2023 (“Green Depo.”). 189:3-22, 191:13-17; 191:25-192:9;

192:18-23. (App. 4-6).

(i) Defendant’s Notice of Intent to Take the Oral and Videotaped
Deposition of Corporate Representative of YTNC Meyers, LLC (Green
Depo. Ex. A-1), Deposition Topic Nos. 41-43 (App. 10);

(ii) Defendant’s Notice of Intent to Take the Oral and Videotaped
Deposition of Corporate Representative of YKHKNC Meyers, LLC (Green
Depo. Ex. A-2) Deposition Topic Nos. 41-43 (App. 13);

Defendant’s Response Page 3 of 11
456330_6
(iii) Defendant’s Notice of Intent to Take the Oral and Videotaped
Deposition of Corporate Representative of SMHNC Meyers, LLC (Green
Depo. Ex. A-3) Deposition Topic Nos. 41-43 (App. 16);

(iv) Defendant’s Notice of Intent to Take the Oral and Videotaped
Deposition of Corporate Representative of MHNC Meyers, LLC (Green Ex.
A-4) Deposition Topic Nos. 41-43 (App. 19); and

(vy) Defendant’s Notice of Intent to Take the Oral and Videotaped
Deposition of Corporate Representative of Kaz Meyers Properties, LLC,
d/b/a North Creek Kaz Meyers, LLC (Green Depo. A-5) Deposition Topic
Nos. 41-43 (App. 22-23).
Notices of Lis Pendens, dated June 26, 2019 (“Notices”) (App. 25-32).

Claimants’ Response in Opposition to Nuran’s Motion to Abate Pending

Joinder of Indispensable Party JP Morgan Chase, N.A. filed June 22, 2020, p.

2 (App. 35).
Declaration of Kareem (Kevin) Noorani dated October 25, 2023 (“Noorani

Decl.”) (App. 37-38).

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Petition filed August 8, 2023, pp. 8, 11 (App. 39-

42).
Iv. THERE IS MORE THAN A SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFFS
FILED FRAUDUL. NT LIENS

A This Court has not already decided this issue.

10. Plaintiffs argue that “this Court already determined the propriety of Plaintiffs’

recordation of the Notices.”? The Court’s Order dated December 20, 2019, denying Nuran’s

Motion to Expunge did not make a finding determining the propriety of Plaintiffs’ recordation of

the Notices, contrary to what Plaintiffs allege.

2 Motion, p. 2, 2.
Defendant’s Response Page4 of 11
456330_6
B Plaintiffs filed the Notices with knowledge that they were fraudulent liens.

11. Chapter 12 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code applies to this dispute.

Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 12.002(a), there are three (3) criteria to show that a lien

filed against real property is a fraudulent lien filing. These are: (1) knowledge that it is a fraudulent

lien, (2) intent that the document be given legal effect, and (3) intent to cause physical injury,

financial injury, or mental anguish.’ In this case, (1) Plaintiffs filed the Notices with knowledge

that they were fraudulent liens, (2) Plaintiffs intended that the Notices be given legal effect, and

(3) Plaintiffs intended to cause Nuran financial injury.

12. With respect to the first element, there is more than a scintilla of evidence that

Plaintiffs filed and recorded the Notices against Sunchase and Ivy with knowledge that they were

not valid. Plaintiffs knew that these Notices were not valid because, as a matter of law, they do not

satisfy any situations in which someone can properly file a lis pendens during the pendency of a

lawsuit.

13. Texas Property Code §12.007(a) sets out the sole and exclusive legal basis for filing

a lis pendens when a lawsuit is pending. A party may file a lis pendens during a lawsuit only if the

lawsuit involves one of three things (none of which Plaintiffs show here): 1) title to real property,

2) establishment of an interest in real property, or 3) enforcement of an encumbrance against real

property.*

14. In the present case, Plaintiffs’ lawsuit does not involve Plaintiff seeking title to, or

an interest in, Sunchase or Ivy. Rather, Plaintiffs seek a constructive trust. See Petition, Ex. E (App.

42). Texas law is well settled that when a claimant seeks a constructive trust, the claimant’s interest

3 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 12.002(a).
4 Tex. Prop. Code § 12.007(a).

Defendant’s Response Page 5 of11
456330_6
in real property is merely collateral.> Accordingly, filing and recording a notice of lis pendens is

improper where the interest in the property is merely collateral.°

15. Under well-established Texas law, a plaintiff who merely seeks a constructive trust

in property cannot file a lis pendens on the property.’ The Saleh Elisa case is controlling. In that

case, which is similar to this case, the plaintiffs alleged claims for fraudulent transfer and

constructive trust.’ The Saleh Elisa plaintiffs alleged that defendants contracted with them to use

funds exclusively for a particular development, but instead used the funds to develop another

property (“Second Property”).° The plaintiffs filed a notice of lis pendens on the Second Property,

which defendants claimed was fraudulent.'? The Dallas Court of Appeals held that because the

plaintiffs’ interest in the Second Property was based on a constructive trust, plaintiffs merely had

a collateral interest in the Second Property and therefore, the court held that plaintiffs’ lis pendens

was fraudulent"!

16. Saleh Elisa follows the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Flores." In Flores, the

plaintiffs brought suit for conversion against Flores, alleging that he converted property and used

the proceeds to buy certain other properties (“Purchased Properties”).'? In their petition, the Flores

plaintiffs sought a constructive trust on the Purchased Properties.'* They filed notices of lis

pendens on the Purchased Properties, and sought to have a constructive trust placed on them.'> The

5 See In Re Saleh Elisa and Carzone Investors, Inc., Relators, 2022 WL 391505, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas, Feb. 9,
2022), citing Flores v. Haberman, 915 S.W.2d 477, 478 (Tex. 1995).
° Id.
"Id.
SId. at*1
° Td.
10 Id. at *2.
"Td, at *4,
” Flores, 915 S.W.2d at 478.
Bid
14 Iq
Id
Defendant’s Response Page 6 of 11
456330_6
Texas Supreme Court held that because the plaintiffs sought a constructive trust in the Purchased

Properties to satisfy the judgment they sought against Flores, their interest was no more than a

collateral interest in the properties.'° Thus, the lis pendens were improper and fraudulent.!7

17. Additionally, in the case of In re TM Vill., Ltd., the Bankruptcy Court in the

Northern District of Texas followed Texas law and cited Flores for this rule of law:

Thus, to satisfy [Texas Property Code] § 12.007, the suit on which the lis pendens
is based must claim a direct interest in real property rather than a collateral interest.
In other words, the property against which the lis pendens is filed must be the
subject matter of the underlying lawsuit. If the suit seeks a property interest only to
secure the recovery of damages or other relief that the plaintiff may be awarded,
the interest is merely collateral and will not support a lis pendens.'®

18. Therefore, according to the courts’ rulings in Saleh Elisa, Flores, and TM Vill., the

Notices of Lis Pendens filed and recorded by Plaintiffs as a matter of law show Plaintiffs’ interest

to be merely collateral and not direct. In this case, Plaintiffs are seeking damages merely in the

form of monetary relief from Nuran pursuant to a TUFTA claim. See Petition, Ex. E (App. 41).

Plaintiffs do not seek the return of any alleged fraudulently acquired real property. Nuran’s real

properties Sunchase and Ivy are not the subject matter of this lawsuit. In fact, it is undisputed that

the proceeds from the sale of Northcreek from Shawnee to Plaintiffs were used to pay-off loans

associated with Sunchase and Ivy, not to acquire them. See Noorani Decl., Ex. D (App. 38).

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ alleged interest in these apartments can only be described as “collateral”

according to Saleh Elisa, Flores and TM Vill.

19. Plaintiffs admit they have no evidence that they seek or have an interest in Sunchase

or Ivy. In Plaintiffs’ corporate representative deposition, Green was asked about the allegations in

16 Td. (citing Moss y. Tennant, 722 S.W.2d 762, 763 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, orig. proceeding)).
"7 Flores, 915 S.W.2d at 478.
18 In re TM Vill., Ltd., No. 18-32770-BJH, 2019 WL 1004571, at *4 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2019) (citations
omitted).

Defendant’s Response Page 7 of 11
456330_6
Plaintiffs’ Petition, as follows: (i) whether Plaintiffs seek to establish an interest in Sunchase and/or

Ivy, other than as security for recovery for damages; (ii) whether Plaintiffs seek a real property

interest or claim as to Sunchase and/or Ivy; and (iii) whether Plaintiffs seek to recover title to

Sunchase and/or Ivy. See Green Depo., Ex. A (App. 4-6, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22-23). Green admitted to

no independent facts to support Plaintiffs’ allegations. Green’s repeated mantra to these inquiries

was, “We rely upon our lawyers in regards to legal matters.” Jd. (App. 4-6). Because Plaintiffs

have no evidence to support the validity of their fraudulent liens on Sunchase and Ivy, they are

now precluded from offering any evidence on this topic.'°

20. Plaintiffs’ collateral interest in Sunchase and Ivy does not constitute an interest in

the properties. As a result, there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support the finding that

Plaintiffs filed and recorded the Notices with knowledge that they were fraudulently liens.

'9 See OBE Ins. Corp. v. Jorda Enter., Inc., 277 F.R.D. 676, 690 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2012) (because QBE failed to
provide a corporate representative who could adequately answer questions regarding the topics prepared beforehand,
QBE was precluded from offering any testimony at trial on the subjects which its designee was unable or unwilling to
testify about at the 30(b)(6) deposition)(citing Fraser Yachts Fla, Inc. v. Milne, 2007 WL 1113251, at *3 (S.D. Fla.
April 13, 2007), Chick-Fil-A v. ExxonMobil Corp., 2009 WL 3763032, at *13 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 10, 2009); and Jerardi
y, Lorilland, 1991 WL 158911,at *3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 13, 1991)). See also U.S. v. Taylor, 166 F.R.D. 356, 361-62 (M.D.
N.C. 1996) (A party “does not fulfill its obligations at the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition by stating it has no knowledge or
position with respect to a set of facts or area ofinquiry within its knowledge or reasonably available, and then at the
trial argue a different position.”); Rainey v. Am. Forest & Paper Ass'n, Inc., 26 F.Supp.2d 82, 94 (D.D.C. 1998)
(“Unless it can prove that the information was not known or was inaccessible, a corporation cannot later proffer new
or different allegations that could have been made at the time of the 30(b)(6) deposition.”); Strategic Decisions, LLC
y. Martin Luther King, Jr. Ctr. For Nonviolent Soc. Change, Inc., 2015 WL 2091714, at *7 (N.D. Ga. 2015) (“When
the 30(b)(6) representative claims ignorance of a subject during the deposition, courts have precluded the corporation
from later introducing evidence on that subject.”) (quoting Function Media, LLC. v. Google, Inc., 2010 WL 276093,
at *1 (E.D. Tex. 2010).

In In re Seven Stars on Hudson Corp., 637 B.R. 180, 205 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2022), the court summarized the
tule precluding evidence as follows:

When a Rule 30(b)(6) representative ‘legitimately lacks the ability to answer relevant questions on
listed topics . . ., then the ‘we-don't-know’ response can be binding on the corporation and prohibit
it from offering evidence at trial on those points.’ In other words ‘the lack of knowledge answer is
itselfan answer” that will be binding on the company. With the corporation having answered ‘I don't
know’ through its designated representative, it will not later be allowed to change its answer by
introducing contrary evidence at trial.) (quoting QBE, 277 F.R.D. at 690).
Defendant’s Response Page 8 of 11
456330_6
eC Plaintiffs intended that the Notices be given legal effect.

21. Plaintiffs’ Motion does not challenge this second element.”° Nevertheless, there is

more than a scintilla of evidence that Plaintiffs intended the Notices be given the same legal effect

as a document evidencing a valid claim against Sunchase and Ivy. Plaintiffs filed and recorded the

Notices in the Dallas County real property records. See Notice of Lis Pendens, Ex. B (App. 25-

32). Plaintiffs clearly intended for these Notices to be given legal effect, and continue to do so to

date, until the Court invalidates them.

D. Plaintiffs intended to cause Nuran financial injury.

22. As to the third element, there is more than a scintilla of evidence that Plaintiffs

intended to cause Nuran financial injury by filing and recording the Notices. At the time of filing

the Notices, on June 26, 2019, Noorani had made Plaintiffs aware, through his deposition

testimony on June 19, 2019, that Nuran relies on Sunchase and Ivy as collateral to purchase

property as an investment, such as the 2015 purchase of Northcreek. See Noorani Decl., Ex. D

(App. 38). Further, at the time Plaintiffs filed and recorded the Notices, Noorani had made

Plaintiffs aware through his earlier deposition testimony that Nuran owned no properties or assets

other than Sunchase and Ivy. Jd.

23. By filing the Notices nearly a year and half into litigation, 7! Plaintiffs knew the

filing of the Notices would preclude Nuran from using Sunchase and Ivy as collateral on future

business deals, or preclude Nuran from selling them at fair market price. Plaintiffs are sophisticated

entities involved in real estate transactions and are fully aware of the effects ofa lien on a property.

Nuran submits evidence that the Notices clouded title to Sunchase and Ivy, affected marketability,

2° Motion, p. 4 (arguing that Nuran cannot carry its burden to raise a fact issue on the first and third elements, but not
addressing the second element),
21 Plaintiffs filed the Original Action on December 28, 2017, and filed and recorded the Notices approximately a
year and a half later, on June 26, 2019.

Defendant’s Response Page 9 of 11
456330_6
discouraged potential purchasers, made Sunchase and Ivy unattractive collateral to secure

financing, and decreased the value of the properties to be less than a fair market value. See Noorani

Decl., Ex. D (App. 38).

24. Plaintiffs acknowledge in their pleading the fact that Sunchase and Ivy are used to

pursue business opportunities. Plaintiffs judicially admit as follows:

And when Noorani is interested in pursuing new business opportunities, he
uses Nuran’s prized assets as a revolving line of credit by encumbering and
then paying off debt taken against them. This practice of leveraging Nuran’s
assets is how Shawnee was able to acquire the Property [Northcreek].

See Plaintiffs’ Response to Nuran’s to Abate, Ex. C (App. 35).

25. Thus, there is more than a scintilla of evidence to create a genuine issue of material

fact that Plaintiffs intended to cause Nuran financial injury.

VI. PRAYER

26. For the reasons set forth above, Defendant Nuran respectfully prays that this Court

deny Plaintiffs’ No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendant’s Counterclaim for

Fraudulent Lien.

Defendant’s Response Page
10 of 11
456330_6
Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ C. Gregory Shamoun
C. GREGORY SHAMOUN
State Bar No. 18089650
g@snlegal.com
BRIAN K. NORMAN
State Bar No. 00797161
Email: bkn@snlegal.com
MICHAEL L. HOOD
State Bar No. 0994345
Email: mhood@snlegal.com
SHAMOUN & NORMAN, LLP
1800 Valley View Lane, Suite 200
Farmers Branch, Texas 75234
Telephone: (214) 987-1745
Facsimile: (214) 521-9033

AAMER RAVJI
THE RAVJI LAW FIRM d/b/a RAVJI LAW
State Bar No. 00798455
1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 3870
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: (214) 356-2244
Email: arr@ravjipe.com

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT NURAN, LLC
f/k/a NURAN, IN.C.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that, on this 26th day of October, 2023, in accordance with the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been forwarded
to all counsel of record:

/s/ Michael L. Hood.
MICHAEL L. HOOD

Defendant’s Response Page11 of 11
456330_6
CAUSE NO. DC-20-17067

KAZ MEYERS PROPERTIES, LLC, D/B/A IN THE DISTRICT COURT
NORTH CREEK KAZ MEYERS, LLC,
MHNC MEYERS, LLC, SMHNC MEYERS,
LLC, YKHKNC MEYERS, LLC, and YTNC
MEYERS, LLC,

Plaintiffs,
44™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NURAN, LLC fik/a
NURAN, INC.

Defendant. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

APPENDIX TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ NO-EVIDENCE
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT’S
COUNTERCLAIM FOR FRAUDULENT LIEN

Ex, No Title App No.
Ex. Deposition of Plaintiffs’ Corporate Representative Yisreal (Tom) App: 1-7
Green dated September 20, 2023, 189:3-22, 191:13-17; 191:25-
192:9; 192:18-23.
Ex. A-l Defendant’s Notice of Intent to Take the Oral and Videotaped App: 8-10
Deposition of Corporate Representative of YTNC Meyers, LLC,
p.5
Ex, A-2 Defendant’s Notice of Intent to Take the Oral and Videotaped App. 11-13
Deposition of Corporate Representative of YK HKNC Meyers,
LLC, p. 5
Ex. .A-3 Defendant’s Notice of Intent to Take the Oral and Videotaped App 14-16
Deposition of Corporate Representative of SMHNC Meyers,
LLC, p. 5
Ex A-4 Defendant’s Notice of Intent to Take the Oral and Videotaped App. 17-19
Deposition of Corporate Representative of MHNC Meyers, LLC,
p.5
Ex. A-5S Defendant’s Notice of Intent to Take the Oral and Videotaped App 20-23
Deposition of Corporate Representative of Kaz Meyers
Properties, LLC, d/b/a North Creek Kaz Meyers, LLC, p. 5-6
Ex Notices of Lis Pendens, dated June 26, 2019 App 24-32

APPENDIX Page | of 2
456811_1
Ex. C Claimants’ Response in Opposition to Nuran’s Motion to Abate App. 33-35
Pending Joinder of Indispensable Party JP Morgan Chase, N.A.
filed June 22, 2020, p. 2
Ex. D Declaration of Kareem Noorani, dated October 26, 2023 App. 36-38
Ex. E Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Petition, filed August 8, 2023, pp. 8, App. 39-42
11-12

APPENDIX Page 2 of 2
456811_1
EXHIBIT A

App. 1
Page 1
YISRAEL TOM GREEN - September 20, 2023

CAUSE NO. DC-20-17067

KAZ MEYERS PROPERTIES, LLC, ( IN THE DISTRICT COURT
D/B/A NORTH CREEK KAZ
MEYERS, LLC, MHNC MEYERS,
LLC, SMHNC MEYERS, LLC,
YKHKNC MEYERS, LLC, and
YTNC MEYERS, LLC,

Plaintiffs, 44th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Vv.

NURAN, INC.,

Defendant. ( DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

TI RII II IOI IO IO I IC Rk kkk dtodd ke ke ke
ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
YISRAEL (TOM) GREEN
AS CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF
MEYERS GROUP
SEPTEMBER 20, 2023
FOR I II OIIO dk a kk koe

ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF YISRAEL
(TOM) GREEN, produced as a witness at the instance of
the Defendant, and duly sworn, was taken in the
above-styled and numbered cause on the 20th day of
September, 2023, from 9:27 a.m. to 5:53 p.m. before
Janet Argo, CSR in and for the State of Texas, reported
by computerized stenotype machine, at Bell Nunnally «&
Martin, LLP, 2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 1900, Dallas,
Texas, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure
and the provisions stated on the record or attached
hereto.

PREFERRED LEGAL SERVICES, Inc.
(214) 750-0047

App. 2
Page 8
YISRAEL TOM GREEN - September 20, 2023

YISRAEL (TOM) GREEN,
having been duly sworn, testified as follows:

EXAMINATION

BY MR. SHAMOUN:
Sys
). Wor ou ti 5
your | 17 | name, sir
gas Yisrael Green.

19.

PREFERRED LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
(214) 750-0047

App. 3
Page 189
YISRAEL TOM GREEN - September 20, 2023

ou doc be act
ne at

Ap ort nc¢ J bi to

five me an answer?
MR. SINGAPURA Object to form
es
ma ay ha we upon our li:

8 | regards
to legal matters
9 _ Q. (BY MR. SHAMOUN) You can't answer the questio
10 any a ther than that 18 here now; am I
11

13 go fom AG of 7 ‘Paragraphs27
mene
14 throug! ama.

15 ert I asked you the facts that wou
ry
16 ACTH of these — 4 pn te ee
be,
"I don't
17 | know how to answer
that question, we rely upon my

18 lawyer"? ~
19 MR. SINGAPURA Object to form

20 A. ithout ev ch one depth , wo
I uld

a
rahe veg
ivi re to say that we rely upon our in 1 regards
la wyer to
gal matters.

PREFERRED LEGAL SERVICES, INC
(214) 750-0047

App. 4
Page 191
YISRAEL TOM GREEN - September 20, 2023

10 Q (BY MR. SHAMOUN) There you go again. We've

11 been through this "I don't know how to answer the

12 question."

13 Do you know how to answer thequestion as
14 " or not you have any facts t'a ensupRgrt
15 ‘Topics 27 through 41?
16 A. I know that we rely upon our lawyer in regards

ae |} to legal matters.

25 Q. (BY MR. SHAMOUN) Is that the answer you're

PREFERRED LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
(214) 750-0047

App. 5
Page 192
YISRAEL TOM GREEN - September 20, 2023

going
to stick to as csto "Please state all facts to

| support your contentions" from Paragraph27 to 41 under

|these topics, is that "We rely upon our lawyer"?

A. In regards
to legal matters, yes.

18 Q (BY MR. SHAMOUN) The same would
be true from
19 Paragraph 27 through
41. No independent facts to

20 allegation
that ort
supp other than "We rely upon our
21 lawyer."

22 MR. SINGAPURA: Object to form.

23 A. Yes.

PREFERRED LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
(214) 750-0047

App. 6
Page 197
YISRAEL TOM GREEN - September 20, 2023

That a copy of this certificate was served on all

parties herein on and filed

with the Clerk pursuant to Rule 203.3.

I further certify that I am neither counsel for,

related to, nor employed by any of the parties or

attorneys in the action in which this proceeding was

taken, and further that I am not financially or

otherwise interested in the outcome of the action.

Certified to by me this 3rd day of

10 October.

Borel dn ge
121

13 Janet Argo
Texas CSR No. 6295
14 Expiration Date: 1/31/25
15 Preferred Legal Services, Inc.
Firm Registration No. 157
16 P.O. Box 551387
Dallas, Texas 75355-1387
17

PREFERRED LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
(214) 750-0047

App. 7
EXHIBIT A-1

App. 8
CAUSE NO. DC-20-17067

KAZ MEYERS PROPERTIES, LLC, D/B/A IN THE DISTRICT COURT
NORTH CREEK KAZ MEYERS, LLC,
MHNC MEYERS, LLC, SMHNC MEYERS,
LLC, YKHKNC MEYERS, LLC, and YTNC
MEYERS, LLC,

Plaintiffs, 44™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NURAN, INC.,

Defendant. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT’: NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED
DEPOSITION OF CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF YTNC MEYERS. LLC

TO: Plaintiffs Kaz Meyers Properties, LLC, D/B/A North Creek Kaz Meyers, LLC, MHNC
Meyers, LLC, SMHNC Meyers, LLC, YKHKNC Meyers, LLC, and YTNC Meyers, LLC,
by and through their attomeys of record, Kartik R. Singapura and Sydnie A. Shimkus, BELL
NUNNALLY & MARTIN LLP, 2323 Ross Ave, Suite 1900, Dallas, Texas 75201.

COMES NOW Defendant Nuran, Inc. n/k/a Nuran, LLC (“Defendant”), Defendant in the

above-styled and numbered cause, and serves this Defendant's Notice of Intent to Take the Oral

and Videotaped Deposition of Corporate Representative of YTNC Meyers, LLC. Pursuant to Texas

Rule of Civil Procedure 199, Defendant shall take the oral and videotaped deposition of
CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF YTNC MEYERS, LLC, commencing at 4:00 PM

CST on Wednesday, September 20, 2023, at the office of Bell Nunnally & Martin, LLP, 2323

Ross Ave, Suite 1900, Dallas, Texas 75201.!

The deposition shall be conducted before a certified court Teporter, stenographically and/or

by video recording. The deposition will continue from day to day until completed unless the parties

Plaintiffs have conveyed to Nuran that the five (5) Plaintiffs are tenants-in-common, and that their allegations
and
grounds for reliefdo not differ among one another.

Notice of Deposition - YTNC Meyers ber Page 1 of 6
454623_1 wr (Ave
DATE:
JANET ARGO, CSR

App. 9
outro fit nase No, DC-OTT-1 78 conse opens Sune

Notice of Deposition - YTNC Meyers Page 5 of 6
454623_1

App. 10
EXHIBIT A-2

App. 11
CAUSE NO. DC-20-17067

KAZ MEYERS PROPERTIES, LLC, D/B/A IN THE DISTRICT COURT
NORTH CREEK KAZ MEYERS, LLC,
MHNC MEYERS, LLC, SMHNC MEYERS,
LLC, YKHKNC MEYERS, LLC, and YTNC
MEYERS, LLC,

Plaintiffs, 447 JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NURAN, INC.,

Defendant. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED
DEPOSITION OF CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF YKHKNC MEYERS, LLC

TO: Plaintiffs Kaz Meyers Properties, LLC, D/B/A North Creek Kaz Meyers, LLC, MHNC
Meyers, LLC, SMHNC Meyers, LLC, YKHKNC Meyers, LLC, and YTNC Meyers, LLC,
by and through their attorneys of record, Kartik R. Singapura and Sydnie A. Shimkus, BELL
NUNNALLY & MARTIN LLP, 2323 Ross Ave, Suite 1900, Dallas, Texas 75201.

COMES NOW Defendant Nuran, Inc. n/k/a Nuran, LLC (“Defendant”), Defendant in the

above-styled and numbered cause, and serves this Defendant's Notice of Intent to Take the Oral

and Videotaped Deposition of Corporate Representative of YKHKNC Meyers, LLC. Pursuant to

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 199, Defendant shall take the oral and videotaped deposition of

CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF YKHKNC MEYERS, LLC, commencing at 2:30

PM CST on Wednesday, September 20, 2023, at the office of Bell Nunnally & Martin, LLP,

2323 Ross Ave, Suite 1900, Dallas, Texas 75201.!

The deposition shall be conducted before a certified court reporter, stenographically and/or

by video recording. The deposition will continue from day to day until completed unless the parties

! Plaintiffs have conveyed to Nuran that the five (5) Plaintiffs are tenants-in-common, and that their allegations and
grounds for relief do not differ among one another.

te
Notice of Deposition - YKHKNC Meyers Page | of 6
454622_3
DATE:
JANET ARGO, CSR

App. 12
Conti, din Ce No, DEST? A7G8, sek o each nr in Sura
oun, din Cae No, DCOF7-170 cose oper Sin aoe Suncase

Notice of Deposition - YKHKNC Meyers Page 5 of 6
454622_3

App. 13
EXHIBIT A-3

App. 14
CAUSE NO. DC-20-17067
KAZ MEYERS PROPERTIES, LLC, D/B/A
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
NORTH CREEK KAZ MEYERS, LLC,
MHNC MEYERS, LLC, SMHNC MEYERS,
LLC, YKHKNC MEYERS, LLC, and YTNC
MEYERS, LLC,

Plaintiffs,
44™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Vv.

NURAN, INC.,

Defendant.
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENITION
DEPOS DANT’S OFNOTIC
CORDE OF INTEN T TO TAKE
TAKE THE
LD THE ORAL
ORAL AN
ANDD VID
VIDEEOT
OTAP
APEED
DEPOSITION OF CORPORAT E REPRESENTATIVE OF SMHN: C€ MEYERS
, LLC
TO: Plaintiffs Kaz Meyers Properties, LLC, D/B/A North Creel
k Kaz Meyers, LLC, MHNC
Meyers, LLC, SMHNC Meyers, LLC, YKHKNC Meyers, LLC, and
YTNC Meyers, LLC,
by and through their attomeys of record, Kartik R. Sin gapura and
Sydnie A. Shimkus, BELL
NUNNALLY & MARTIN LLP, 2323 Ross Ave, Suite 1 900, Dallas
, Texas 75201.
COMES NOW Defendant Nuran, Inc. n/k/a Nuran, LLC (“Defendant”
), Defendant in the
above-styled and numbered cause, and serves this
Defendant's Notice of Intent to Take the Oral

and Videotaped Deposition of Corporate Representative of SMHNC
Meyers, LLC. Pursuant to
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 199, Defendant shall
take the oral and videotaped deposition of

CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF SMHNC MEYE
RS, LLC, commencing at 1:00 PM
CST on Wednesday, September 20, 2023, at the office of
Bell Nunnally & Martin, LLP, 2323

Ross Ave, Suite 1900, Dallas, Texas 75201. !

The deposition shall be conducted before a certified court reporte
r, stenographically and/or
by video recording. The deposition will continue from day to day
until completed unless the parties

Plaintiffs have conveyed to Nuran that the five (5) Plaintiffs are tenants-in-common,
and that their allegations and
grounds for relief do not differ among one another.

Notice of Deposition - SMHNC Meyers EXHIBI
454621_1 Page 1 of 6

DATE: -20.2
JANET ARGO, CSR.

App. 15
Caum etin Htin Cae Rn aT aty fora recoveree
Apgiments andor the Ixy Aparments, other than as securit Ane
y of Your damages and

Cami ino Tsu esa pps
43.‘The Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amended Petition, Third-Party Defendants’ Fourth Amended
Soamrcaim, fled in Cause No, DC-O17-17708, seeks recover y tothe tle of the Sunchase
Notice of Deposition ~- SMHNC Meyers
434621_1 Page 5 of 6

App. 16
EXHIBIT A-4

Case Info

Judge

FRAZIER, VERETTA Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

October 26, 2023

Case Filing Date

November 16, 2020

County

Parties

HOOD, MICHAEL L Attorney for the Defendant
KAZ MEYERS PROPERTIES, LLC Plaintiff
LAVERNIA, LAURA Attorney for the Plaintiff
MHNC MEYERS, LLC Plaintiff
NORMAN, BRIAN K Attorney for the Defendant
NURAN, INC Defendant
RAVJI, AAMER Attorney for the Defendant
SHAMOUN, C GREGORY Attorney for the Defendant
SHIMKUS, SYDNIE A Attorney for the Plaintiff
SINGAPURA, KARTIK Attorney for the Plaintiff
SMHNC MEYERS, LLC Plaintiff
YKHKNC MEYERS, LLC Plaintiff
YTNC MEYERS, LLC Plaintiff
Riley Coven Attorney
Tailim Song Attorney
Christopher Valentine Attorney
Beverly Whitley Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Jonathan Aldaco Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Catherine Baldo Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Michael Lee Attorney
Stephen Tittle Attorney
Travis Kelley Attorney
Matthew Jaynes Attorney
Lorenzo Brown Attorney
Kenneth Meixelsperger Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Britaney Garrett Attorneys for Plaintiffs

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

Motion-Secondary: KAZ MEYERS PROPERTIES, LLC,et al vs. NURAN, INC

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties